2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2013.12.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for fuzzy classification in survival prediction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
57
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
0
57
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Regarding the ICBU, few works have dealt with the problem of survival prediction using machine learning or intelligent data analysis [8]. As far as we know, none of them consider patient's evolution.…”
Section: Background Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding the ICBU, few works have dealt with the problem of survival prediction using machine learning or intelligent data analysis [8]. As far as we know, none of them consider patient's evolution.…”
Section: Background Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this paper we apply a wrapper feature selection mechanism via the adaptation of a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm known as ENORA [9], [10], and we compare its performance against the classical multi-objective evolutionary algorithm NSGA-II [11] along two directives: (i) performance of the multi-objective search strategy via measuring the hypervolume, and (ii) quality of the classifiers that have been built over the selected features. The goal is to build a classifier for the session data of a multi-skill contact center, which allows us to predict the outcome of a communication based on a limited set of features.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of those, 785 focused on the wrong topic (e.g., robotics) and were excluded from the analysis. Afterwards, titles and abstracts of 722 articles were screened, and a total of 15 studies were identified and included in the analysis [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. 4 studies [21,24,25,30] used the same database of wound images, and 3 studies [22,23,27] used the same patient dataset.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%