Ovarian Cancer (OC) is one of the major types of cancers in women worldwide. Despite the standardization of characteristics that can help distinguish benign from malignant ovarian masses, accurate predictive modelling following ultrasound (US) examination and biomarkers for ’progression-free survival’ is lacking in the field of ovarian cancer. Important leading factors in ovarian cancer lethality are the lack of diagnostic procedures and proper screening to detect early-stage ovarian cancer, and the rapid spread of the disease over the surface of the peritoneum. Therefore, developing tools for accurate screening and prognosis, as well as the diagnosis of early stage ovarian cancer, is a current clinical need. In this study, an ensemble classifier was developed as a novel means of ovarian cancer prediction, and its effectiveness was assessed. The ensemble classifier integrates various machine learning algorithms, including support vector machines (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), decision trees (DT), naïve Bayes (NB), and logistic regression (LR). Because ensembles may integrate the benefits of numerous models, they can mitigate the limitations of each model individually and improve the overall predictive performance, making them popular in the domain of machine learning. To increase predictive performance, an ensemble hybrid approach was created by utilizing a meta-classifier to merge many base classifiers. The performance with respect to various measures of the ensemble classifier was evaluated considering a comprehensive novel dataset of ovarian cancer patients, including tumor markers as well as clinical and ultrasound features. Through extensive cross-validation studies, the hybrid model showed better prediction accuracy of 95% which is approximately 6-17% improved than the baseline classifiers and state-of-the-art ensemble approaches in predicting ovarian cancer. After comparing the performance of the ensemble classifier with other existing classifiers, the ensemble classifier outperformed the individual models and conventional diagnostic techniques in terms of sensitivity (94%) and specificity (95%) through performance evaluation.
Keywords
Ovarian Cancer, Classification, Accuracy, Data Preprocessing, Machine Learning.
M. Kalaiyarasi and H. Rajaguru, “Performance Analysis of Ovarian Cancer Detection and Classification for Microarray Gene Data,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2022, pp. 1–16, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/6750457.
J. C Citadel, J. F. Paula, F. Jacques, V. Jerome, L. Mathieu, L. Lihu, A. Maaike, B. Freddie, and S. Isabelle, “Ovarian cancer today and tomorrow: A global assessment by world region and human development index using globocan 2020”, International Journal of Cancer, vol. 151, no. 9, pp. 1535–1541, 2022.
T. K. Burki, “CA-125 blood test in early detection of ovarian cancer,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 16, no. 6, p. e269, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(15)70237-8.
F. T. Ali et al., “Sensitivity and specificity of microRNA-204, CA125, and CA19.9 as biomarkers for diagnosis of ovarian cancer,” PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 8, p. e0272308, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272308.
D. Timmerman et al., “ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 148–168, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1002/uog.23635.
D. Timmerman et al., “Logistic Regression Model to Distinguish Between the Benign and Malignant Adnexal Mass Before Surgery: A Multicenter Study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 23, no. 34, pp. 8794–8801, Dec. 2005, doi: 10.1200/jco.2005.01.7632.
D. Timmerman et al., “Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 214, no. 4, pp. 424–437, Apr. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.01.007.
J. Koneczny, A. Czekierdowski, M. Florczak, P. Poziemski, N. Stachowicz, and D. Borowski, “The use of sonographic subjective tumor assessment, IOTA logistic regression model 1, IOTA Simple Rules and GI-RADS system in the preoperative prediction of malignancy in women with adnexal masses,” Ginekologia Polska, vol. 88, no. 12, pp. 647–653, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.5603/gp.a2017.0116.
J. A. Hall, “Adnexal Masses: When to Observe, When to Intervene, and When to Refer,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 116, no. 2, p. 440, Aug. 2010, doi: 10.1097/aog.0b013e3181ea4f15.
K. Deeba and B. Amutha, “Classification Algorithms of Data Mining,” Indian Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 9, no. 39, Oct. 2016, doi: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i39/102065.
B. Van Calster, K. Van Hoorde, and W. Froyman W,” Practical guidance for applying the ADNEX model from the IOTA group to discriminate between different subtypes of adnexal tumors.”, Facts Views Vis Obgyn. Vol. 7, pp. 32-41, 2015.
K. G. Araujo et al., “Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model in preoperative discrimination of adnexal masses in a gynecological oncology center,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 778–783, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1002/uog.15963.
A. Cristina., “A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses”, ultrasound obstet gynecol, vol. 31, pp. 681-690, 2008.
Â. Melo, R. Veríssimo, M. Farinha, N. N. Martins, and F. N. Martins, “Discriminative value of CA-125, HE4, Risk of Malignancy Index II (RMI-II) and Risk of Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) in the differential diagnosis of pelvic masses: conclusions from a referral Centre in Portugal,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1140–1145, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1080/01443615.2018.1457632.
E. Aktürk et al., “Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the detection of malignant ovarian masses,” Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 22, no. 3, p. 177, 2011, doi: 10.3802/jgo.2011.22.3.177.
A. Borges et al., “2022-RA-727-ESGO Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions in a Portuguese population,” Diagnostics, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-esgo.157.
B. Van Calster et al., “Validation of models to diagnose ovarian cancer in patients managed surgically or conservatively: multicentre cohort study,” BMJ, p. m2614, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2614.
J. Kaijser et al., “Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: a summary of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 9–20, Dec. 2012, doi: 10.1002/uog.12323.
D. Timmerman et al., “Simple ultrasound‐based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 681–690, May 2008, doi: 10.1002/uog.5365.
N. Nunes, G. Ambler, X. Foo, J. Naftalin, M. Widschwendter, and D. Jurkovic, “Use of IOTA simple rules for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: meta‐analysis,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 503–514, Oct. 2014, doi: 10.1002/uog.13437.
B. Van Calster, K. Van Hoorde, W. Froyman, J. Kaijser, L. Wynants, C. Landolfo, C. Anthoulakis, I. Vergote, T. Bourne, D. Timmerma, “Practical guidance for applying the ADNEX model from the IOTA group to discriminate between different subtypes of adnexal tumors”, Facts Views Vis Obgyn, vol 7, no. 1, 32-41, 2015.
S. Yang et al., “Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model combined with HE4 for identifying early-stage ovarian cancer,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 12, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.949766.
M. Zhang, S. Cheng, Y. Jin, Y. Zhao, and Y. Wang, “Roles of CA125 in diagnosis, prediction, and oncogenesis of ovarian cancer,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Cancer, vol. 1875, no. 2, p. 188503, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2021.188503.
A. Matsas et al., “Tumor Markers and Their Diagnostic Significance in Ovarian Cancer,” Life, vol. 13, no. 8, p. 1689, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.3390/life13081689.
A. Lal and C. R. S. Kumar, “Hybrid classifier for increasing accuracy of fitness data set,” 2017 2nd International Conference for Convergence in Technology (I2CT), Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1109/i2ct.2017.8226326.
V. V. P. Wibowo, Z. Rustam, S. Hartini, F. Maulidina, I. Wirasati, and W. Sadewo, “Ovarian cancer classification using K-Nearest Neighbor and Support Vector Machine,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1821, no. 1, p. 012007, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1821/1/012007.
Y. Zeng and F. Cheng, “Medical and Health Data Classification Method Based on Machine Learning,” Journal of Healthcare Engineering, vol. 2021, pp. 1–5, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1155/2021/2722854.
R. H. Ekpo, V. C. Osamor, A. A. Azeta, E. Ikeakanam, and B. O. Amos, “Machine learning classification approach for asthma prediction models in children,” Health and Technology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–10, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s12553-023-00732-8.
M. Lu et al., “Using machine learning to predict ovarian cancer,” International Journal of Medical Informatics, vol. 141, p. 104195, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104195.
S Radhimeenakshi, “Classification and prediction of heart disease risk using data mining techniques of support vector machine and artificial neural network”, In 2016 3rd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom), p. 3107–3111. IEEE, 2019.
F. C. Meng, Dr. B. Amiya, and Dr. D. Urmisha,“Predictive Diagnosis through Data Mining for Cancer Detection and Treatment”, Onomázein, vol. 61, pp. 276–283, 2023.
I. Gómez-Talal, A. Barquín, L. Bote-Curiel, M. Yagüe-Fernández, J. L. Rojo-Álvarez, and J. García-Donás, “A machine learning approach to predicting ovarian cancer: Integrating clinical and genetic data,” Science Talks, vol. 10, p. 100319, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.sctalk.2024.100319.
S. Sindhu, D. Hemavathi, K. Sornalakshmi, G. Sujatha, and S. Srividhya, “A Comprehensive Study on the Application of Machine Learning Algorithms in the Prognosis of Ovarian Cancer”, The Open Biomedical Engineering Journal, vol. 17, no. 1, 2023.
S. Ambekar, N. Kaul, M. Hudnurkar, and Niharika, “Feature Selection based Performance Comparison of Classifier Models for an Imbalanced Dataset: Early Diagnosis of Symptoms for Ovarian Cancer,” 2023 International Conference on Innovative Computing, Intelligent Communication and Smart Electrical Systems (ICSES), Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1109/icses60034.2023.10465317.
R. Shetty, M. Geetha, D. U. Acharya, and G. Shyamala, “A Comparative Study of Efficient Classification Models,” Recent Advances in Artificial Intelligence and Data Engineering, pp. 441–447, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-3342-3_35.
Sudhi M, Shukla VK, Shetty DK, Gupta V. Advancements in bladder cancer management: a comprehensive review of artificial intelligence and machine learning applications. Engineered Science. 2023;26.
R. Sankaranarayanan, K. S. Umadevi, N. Bhavani, B. M. Jos, A. Haldorai, and D. V. Babu, “Cluster-based attacks prevention algorithm for autonomous vehicles using machine learning algorithms,” Computers and Electrical Engineering, vol. 101, p. 108088, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2022.108088.
A. Kadekar et al., “An Overview of Yeast-Based Toxicology: Unraveling Molecular Mechanisms, Advancing Drug Discovery, and Addressing Translational Complexities,” Engineered Science, 2023, doi: 10.30919/es1063.
Acknowledgements
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Availability of data and materials
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Author information
Contributions
All authors have equal contribution in the paper and all authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Geetha M
Geetha M
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs is a more restrictive license. It allows you to redistribute the material commercially or non-commercially but the user cannot make any changes whatsoever to the original, i.e. no derivatives of the original work. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Cite this article
Roopashri Shetty, Geetha M, Shyamala G and Dinesh Acharya U, “Integrating Machine Learning Algorithms and Advanced Computing Technology Using an Ensemble Hybrid Classifier”, Journal of Machine and Computing, pp. 722-735, July 2024. doi: 10.53759/7669/jmc202404068.
