4.7 Article

Inverse projection group sparse representation for tumor classification: A low rank variation dictionary approach

期刊

KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS
卷 196, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105768

关键词

Tumor classification; Low rank variation dictionary; Inverse projection group sparse representation; Microarray gene expression data

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11701144, 41771375]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province [202102310087]
  3. Key Laboratory of Intelligent Perception and Image Understanding of Ministry of Education, Xidian University [IPIU2019010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sparse representation based classification (SRC) achieves good results by addressing recognition problem with sufficient training samples per subject. Tumor classification, however, is a typical small sample problem. In this paper, an inverse projection group sparse representation (IPGSR) model is presented for tumor classification based on constructing a low rank variation dictionary (LRVD), for short, LRVD-IPGSR model. Firstly, an IPGSR model is constructed based on making full use of existing training and test samples, and group sparsity effect of genetic data. Furthermore, from a new viewpoint, a LRVD is constructed for improving the performance of IPGSR-based tumor classification. The LRVD can be independently constructed by detecting and utilizing variations of normals and typical patients, rather than directly using and changed with the genetic data or their corresponding feature data. And the LRVD can be automatic updated and extended to fit the case of new types of diseases. Finally, the LRVD-IPGSR model is fully analyzed from feasibility, stability, optimization and convergence. The performance of the LRVD-IPGSR model-based tumor classification framework is verified on eight microarray gene expression datasets, which contain early diagnosis, tumor type recognition and postoperative metastasis. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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