2017
DOI: 10.18517/ijaseit.7.4-2.3395
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Improved Parallelized mRMR for Gene Subset Selection in Cancer Classification

Abstract: Abstract-DNA microarray technology has become a more attractive tool for cancer classification in the scientific and industrial fields. Based on the previous researchers, the conventional approach for cancer classification is primarily based on the morphological appearance of the tumor. The limitations of this approach are the bias in identify the tumors by expert and faced the difficulty in differentiating the cancer subtypes due to most cancers being highly related to the specific biological insight. Thus, t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 30 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, further study will limit the subject age from new-born to 16 years old for male and new-born to 15 years old for female, for age estimation, according to the supported literatures and the findings. The future study will improve the results of the age estimation by studying other algorithms used by various other case studies available such as by Lenin, Reddy, and Kalavathi [46], Ismail et al [45], Ismail et al [46], Khaleel et al [47] and all other classification methods [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, further study will limit the subject age from new-born to 16 years old for male and new-born to 15 years old for female, for age estimation, according to the supported literatures and the findings. The future study will improve the results of the age estimation by studying other algorithms used by various other case studies available such as by Lenin, Reddy, and Kalavathi [46], Ismail et al [45], Ismail et al [46], Khaleel et al [47] and all other classification methods [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%