2016
DOI: 10.18178/ijmlc.2016.6.3.596
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

ABC-SVM: Artificial Bee Colony and SVM Method for Microarray Gene Selection and Multi Class Cancer Classification

Abstract: In this paper, we propose apply ABC algorithm in analyzing microarray dataset. In addition, we propose an innovative hybrid classification model, Support Vector Machine (SVM) with ABC algorithm, to measure the classification accuracy for selected genes. We evaluate the performance of the proposed ABC-SVM algorithm by conducting extensive experiments on six binary and multi-class microarrays dataset. Furthermore, we compare our proposed ABC-SVM algorithm with previously known techniques. The experimental result… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
(25 reference statements)
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this study, 10 different classification algorithms are used to predict the differentiation of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ten classification algorithms used in this paper are SVM (Vadali et al, 2019), Quadratic Discriminant Analysis (QDA) (Siqueira et al, 2017), CART (Cheng et al, 2017), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) (Liu et al, 2016), KNN (Suyundikov et al, 2015), Ensemble (Xiao et al, 2018), ELM (Sachnev et al, 2015), Particle Swarm Optimization-Support Vector Machine (PSO-SVM) (Jiang et al, 2010), Genetic Algorithm-Support Vector Machine (GA-SVM) (Tao et al, 2019), and ABC-SVM (Alshamlan et al, 2016). Thirteen and twenty-one indicators are used as input characteristics, respectively.…”
Section: Correlation Indicators Validation and Escc Differentiation Pmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, 10 different classification algorithms are used to predict the differentiation of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ten classification algorithms used in this paper are SVM (Vadali et al, 2019), Quadratic Discriminant Analysis (QDA) (Siqueira et al, 2017), CART (Cheng et al, 2017), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) (Liu et al, 2016), KNN (Suyundikov et al, 2015), Ensemble (Xiao et al, 2018), ELM (Sachnev et al, 2015), Particle Swarm Optimization-Support Vector Machine (PSO-SVM) (Jiang et al, 2010), Genetic Algorithm-Support Vector Machine (GA-SVM) (Tao et al, 2019), and ABC-SVM (Alshamlan et al, 2016). Thirteen and twenty-one indicators are used as input characteristics, respectively.…”
Section: Correlation Indicators Validation and Escc Differentiation Pmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, selecting the most appropriate wrapper and filter seems to be challenging. Further, it seems the Evolutionary Algorithms (EA) [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] such a Genetic Algorithm (GA) [19,20], Particle Swam Optimization Algorithm (PSO) [19,23], Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm (ACO) [22] and Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm (ABC) [24] have been successfully applied in many researches in gene subset selection. Alba [19] proposed a wrapper approach with EA and SVM namely PSO-SVM and GA-SVM.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The approach was evaluated on six microarray datasets out of which five provided 100% accuracy with only few genes. The author compares the results with ABC-SVM [25], minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance-ABC (mRMR-ABC) [26], Co-GA and Co-PSO algorithms. The results obtained using Co-ABC leads all the algorithms which were compared.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Currently, a series of optimization algorithms is used to optimize the parameters of SVM (e.g. genetic algorithm (Huerta, Duval, & Hao, 2006), particle swarm optimization algorithm (Huang & Dun, 2008), artificial bee colony algorithm (Alshamlan, Badr, & Alohali, 2016)). It avoids the empirical allocation of penalty parameters to SVM, and the choice of kernel function improves the accuracy of pipeline leak condition identification.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%