4.2 Article

Filtering non-balanced data using an evolutionary approach

期刊

LOGIC JOURNAL OF THE IGPL
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 271-286

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jigpal/jzac018

关键词

Clustering tendency; data reduction techniques; evolutionary algorithm; classification strategies; unsupervised data filtering; microarray data analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents an evolutionary method called PreCLAS for handling matrices that cannot be analyzed using conventional clustering, regression or classification methods in big data research. The method significantly reduces the number of rows in the matrix and intelligently performs unsupervised row selection, improving the effectiveness of classification and clustering methods.
Matrices that cannot be handled using conventional clustering, regression or classification methods are often found in every big data research area. In particular, datasets with thousands or millions of rows and less than a hundred columns regularly appear in biological so-called omic problems. The effectiveness of conventional data analysis approaches is hampered by this matrix structure, which necessitates some means of reduction. An evolutionary method called PreCLAS is presented in this article. Its main objective is to find a submatrix with fewer rows that exhibits some group structure. Three stages of experiments were performed. First, a benchmark dataset was used to assess the correct functionality of the method for clustering purposes. Then, a microarray gene expression data matrix was used to analyze the method's performance in a simple classification scenario, where differential expression was carried out. Finally, several classification methods were compared in terms of classification accuracy using an RNA-seq gene expression dataset. Experiments showed that the new evolutionary technique significantly reduces the number of rows in the matrix and intelligently performs unsupervised row selection, improving classification and clustering methods.

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

4.2
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