Advertisement

Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 987–1013 | Cite as

Similarity-based attribute weighting methods via clustering algorithms in the classification of imbalanced medical datasets

Original Article
  • 55 Downloads

Abstract

In the fields of pattern recognition and machine learning, the use of data preprocessing algorithms has been increasing in recent years to achieve high classification performance. In particular, it has become inevitable to use the data preprocessing method prior to classification algorithms in classifying medical datasets with the nonlinear and imbalanced data distribution. In this study, a new data preprocessing method has been proposed for the classification of Parkinson, hepatitis, Pima Indians, single proton emission computed tomography (SPECT) heart, and thoracic surgery medical datasets with the nonlinear and imbalanced data distribution. These datasets were taken from UCI machine learning repository. The proposed data preprocessing method consists of three steps. In the first step, the cluster centers of each attribute were calculated using k-means, fuzzy c-means, and mean shift clustering algorithms in medical datasets including Parkinson, hepatitis, Pima Indians, SPECT heart, and thoracic surgery medical datasets. In the second step, the absolute differences between the data in each attribute and the cluster centers are calculated, and then, the average of these differences is calculated for each attribute. In the final step, the weighting coefficients are calculated by dividing the mean value of the difference to the cluster centers, and then, weighting is performed by multiplying the obtained weight coefficients by the attribute values in the dataset. Three different attribute weighting methods have been proposed: (1) similarity-based attribute weighting in k-means clustering, (2) similarity-based attribute weighting in fuzzy c-means clustering, and (3) similarity-based attribute weighting in mean shift clustering. In this paper, we aimed to aggregate the data in each class together with the proposed attribute weighting methods and to reduce the variance value within the class. Thus, by reducing the value of variance in each class, we have put together the data in each class and at the same time, we have further increased the discrimination between the classes. To compare with other methods in the literature, the random subsampling has been used to handle the imbalanced dataset classification. After attribute weighting process, four classification algorithms including linear discriminant analysis, k-nearest neighbor classifier, support vector machine, and random forest classifier have been used to classify imbalanced medical datasets. To evaluate the performance of the proposed models, the classification accuracy, precision, recall, area under the ROC curve, κ value, and F-measure have been used. In the training and testing of the classifier models, three different methods including the 50–50% train–test holdout, the 60–40% train–test holdout, and tenfold cross-validation have been used. The experimental results have shown that the proposed attribute weighting methods have obtained higher classification performance than random subsampling method in the handling of classifying of the imbalanced medical datasets.

Keywords

Imbalanced medical dataset classification Data preprocessing Attribute weighting Clustering algorithms 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that there is no conflict of interest in anywhere.

References

  1. 1.
    Longadge R, Dongre SS, Malik L (2013) Class imbalance problem in data mining: review. Int J Comput Sci Netw (IJCSN) 2(1):83–87Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Gong J, Kim H (2017) RHSBoost: improving classification performance in imbalance data. Comput Stat Data Anal 111:1–13MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shilaskar S, Ghato A, Chatur P (2017) Medical decision support system for extremely imbalanced datasets. Inf Sci 384:205–219MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang J, Xiao W, Li Y, Zhang S, Yang W (2017) Class-specific cost regulation extreme learning machine for imbalanced classification. Neurocomputing 261:70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    UCI machine learning repository (2018) https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml. Accessed Feb 2018
  9. 9.
    Short RD, Fukunaga K (1981) The optimal distance measure for nearest neighbor classification. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 27:622–627.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1981.1056403 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weinberger KQ, Saul LK (2009) Distance metric learning for large margin nearest neighbor classification. J Mach Learn Res 10:207–244MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cost S, Salzberg S (1993) A weighted nearest neighbor algorithm for learning with symbolic attributes. Mach Learn 10:57–78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993481 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang Z (2014) Too much covariates in a multivariable model may cause the problem of overfitting. J Thorac Dis 6:E196–E197Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman JH (2003) The elements of statistical learning. Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McLachlan GJ (2004) Discriminant analysis and statistical pattern recognition. Wiley, HobokenMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shen R, Ghosh D, Chinnaiyan A, Meng Z (2006) Eigengene-based linear discriminant model for tumor classification using gene expression microarray data. Bioinformatics 22(21):2635–2642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector network. Mach Learn 20(3):273–297MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vapnik V (2014) Invited speaker. In: IPMU information processing and management. 15th international conference on information processing and management of uncertainty in knowledge-based systems, IPMU'2014, Montpellier, France,15–19 July 2014Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Savitt JM, Dawson VL, Dawson TM (2006) Diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson disease: molecules to medicine. J Clin Investig 116(7):1744–1754.  https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI29178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levine CB, Fahrbach KR, Siderowf AD, Estok RP, Ludensky VM, Ross SD (2003) Diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review of the literature. Evid Rep Technol Assess 57:1–4 (Summary) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yuvaraj R, Murugappan M, Acharya UR, Adeli H, Ibrahim NM, Mesquita E (2016) Brain functional connectivity patterns for emotional state classification in Parkinson’s disease patients without dementia. Behav Brain Res 298((Pt B)):248–260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.10.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Clark M (2015) An introduction to machine learning with applications in R, Lecture notes. University of Notre Dame, Notre DameGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureAbant Izzet Baysal UniversityBoluTurkey

Personalised recommendations