Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Akses terbuka Jurnal SINTA 1

Enhancing breast cancer diagnosis: a comparative analysis of feature selection techniques

IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence · Vol. 13 No. 4 (2024) · hlm. 4312–4322

DOI
10.11591/ijai.v13.i4.pp4312-4322
ISSN
2252-8938, 2089-4872
Terbit
2024-12-01
Penerbit
Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science
Bahasa
eng
Lisensi
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0

Abstrak

Breast cancer is a significant contributor to female mortality, emphasizing the importance of early detection. Predicting breast cancer accurately remains a complex challenge within medical data analysis. Machine learning (ML) algorithms offer valuable assistance in decision-making and diagnosis using medical data. Numerous research studies highlight the effectiveness of ML techniques in improving breast cancer prediction. Feature selection plays a pivotal role in data preprocessing, eliminating irrelevant and redundant features to minimize feature count and improve classification accuracy. This study focuses on optimizing breast cancer diagnostics through feature selection methods, specifically genetic algorithms (GA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO). The research involves a comparative analysis of these methods and the application of a diverse set of ML classification techniques, including logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), and ensemble methods like random forest (RF), AdaBoost, and gradient boosting (GB), using a breast cancer dataset. The models' performance is subsequently evaluated using various performance metrics. The experimental findings illustrate that PSO achieved the highest average accuracy, reaching 99.6% when applied to AdaBoost, while GA attained an accuracy rate of 99.5% when employed with both AdaBoost and RF.

Kata kunci

Jaringan kolaborasi para penulis

31 penulis · 81 tautan kepenulisan bersama · 9 lintas organisasi

Arahkan kursor atau ketuk sebuah nama untuk menyorot rekan penulisnya. Klik dua kali untuk membuka halaman penulis.

  • University of Hassan II Casablanca
  • Mohammed V University
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Organisasi berbeda
  • Organisasi sama
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Garis lebih tebal = lebih banyak artikel bersama · lingkaran lebih besar = lebih banyak artikel
Tampilkan sebagai tabel
Rekan penulisOrganisasiArtikel bersama
Mohammed AmraouyMohammed V University3
Ihsane HaloumUniversity of Hassan II Casablanca3
Mostafa JebbarUniversity of Hassan II Casablanca3
Bouchaib AylajAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
El Mehdi BellfkihAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Mohammed El AssadAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Imrane Chemseddine IdrissiAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Jamal Eddine RafiqUniversity of Hassan II Casablanca2
Abdellah BennaneMohammed V University2
Abdelaziz MarzakUniversity of Hassan II Casablanca2
Issam Abderrahman JoundanUniversity of Hassan II Casablanca1
Mohamed AzouaziUniversity of Hassan II Casablanca1
Abdelwahed NamirUniversity of Hassan II Casablanca1
Seddiq El Kasmi AlaouiUniversity of Hassan II Casablanca1
Zouhair ChibaUniversity of Hassan II Casablanca1
Hamza FahamUniversity of Hassan II Casablanca1
Mohammed El AssadUniversity of Hassan II Casablanca1
Mostafa BelkasmiMohammed V University1
Imrane Chemseddine IdrissiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Seddiq El Kasmi AlaouiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Mohamed AzzouaziAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Khalid LouartitiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Jamal MoulineAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Assia NajmAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Mustapha HainUniversity of Hassan II Casablanca1
Ali IdriMohammed V University1
Jamal Eddine RafiqAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Zakrani AbdelaliAfiliasi tidak diketahui1

Afiliasi berasal dari OpenAlex; metadata OAI-PMH jurnal tidak memuatnya. Penulis tanpa ID OpenAlex dicocokkan berdasarkan nama, sehingga dua orang bisa tergabung atau satu orang bisa terpisah.

Sumber metadata: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) http://ijai.iaescore.com/index.php/IJAI/oai, pertama di-harvest 8 Nov 2026, terakhir terlihat 8 Nov 2026.
Metadata asli (oai_dc)
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en-US">Enhancing breast cancer diagnosis: a comparative analysis of feature selection techniques</dc:title>
	<dc:creator>Benghazouani, Salsabila</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Nouh, Said</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Zakrani, Abdelali</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en-US">machine learning</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en-US">Breast cancer; Classification; Feature selection; Genetic algorithm; Particle swarm optimization</dc:subject>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en-US">Breast cancer is a significant contributor to female mortality, emphasizing the importance of early detection. Predicting breast cancer accurately remains a complex challenge within medical data analysis. Machine learning (ML) algorithms offer valuable assistance in decision-making and diagnosis using medical data. Numerous research studies highlight the effectiveness of ML techniques in improving breast cancer prediction. Feature selection plays a pivotal role in data preprocessing, eliminating irrelevant and redundant features to minimize feature count and improve classification accuracy. This study focuses on optimizing breast cancer diagnostics through feature selection methods, specifically genetic algorithms (GA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO). The research involves a comparative analysis of these methods and the application of a diverse set of ML classification techniques, including logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), and ensemble methods like random forest (RF), AdaBoost, and gradient boosting (GB), using a breast cancer dataset. The models' performance is subsequently evaluated using various performance metrics. The experimental findings illustrate that PSO achieved the highest average accuracy, reaching 99.6% when applied to AdaBoost, while GA attained an accuracy rate of 99.5% when employed with both AdaBoost and RF.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en-US">Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science</dc:publisher>
	<dc:contributor xml:lang="en-US"></dc:contributor>
	<dc:date>2024-12-01</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:type xml:lang="en-US"></dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://ijai.iaescore.com/index.php/IJAI/article/view/24792</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.11591/ijai.v13.i4.pp4312-4322</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en-US">IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (IJ-AI); Vol 13, No 4: December 2024; 4312-4322</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2252-8938</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2089-4872</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.11591/ijai.v13.i4</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://ijai.iaescore.com/index.php/IJAI/article/view/24792/14323</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">Copyright (c) 2024 Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science</dc:rights>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>