4.6 Article

A Machine Learning Approach for the Classification of Kidney Cancer Subtypes Using miRNA Genome Data

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app8122422

关键词

kidney cancer; subtype classification; miRNA as biomarker; machine learning; TCGA

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation [1624497]
  2. GtechProcure
  3. Div Of Industrial Innovation & Partnersh
  4. Directorate For Engineering [1624497] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kidney cancer is one of the deadliest diseases and its diagnosis and subtype classification are crucial for patients' survival. Thus, developing automated tools that can accurately determine kidney cancer subtypes is an urgent challenge. It has been confirmed by researchers in the biomedical field that miRNA dysregulation can cause cancer. In this paper, we propose a machine learning approach for the classification of kidney cancer subtypes using miRNA genome data. Through empirical studies we found 35 miRNAs that possess distinct key features that aid in kidney cancer subtype diagnosis. In the proposed method, Neighbourhood Component Analysis (NCA) is employed to extract discriminative features from miRNAs and Long Short Term Memory (LSTM), a type of Recurrent Neural Network, is adopted to classify a given miRNA sample into kidney cancer subtypes. In the literature, only a couple of kidney subtypes have been considered for classification. In the experimental study, we used the miRNA quantitative read counts data, which was provided by The Cancer Genome Atlas data repository (TCGA). The NCA procedure selected 35 of the most discriminative miRNAs. With this subset of miRNAs, the LSTM algorithm was able to group kidney cancer miRNAs into five subtypes with average accuracy around 95% and Matthews Correlation Coefficient value around 0.92 under 10 runs of randomly grouped 5-fold cross-validation, which were very close to the average performance of using all miRNAs for classification.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据