Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19591666›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2009

A comparison of random forest and its Gini importance with standard chemometric methods for the feature selection and classification of spectral data.

Bjoern H Menze, B Michael Kelm, Ralf Masuch, Uwe Himmelreich, Peter Bachert, Wolfgang Petrich, Fred A Hamprecht

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 282 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
282citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

282 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Machine learning prediction of conduct problems in children using the longitudinal ABCD study.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

222 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Bjoern H MenzeInterdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing (IWR), University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. bjoern.menze@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
B Michael Kelm
Ralf Masuch
Uwe Himmelreich
Peter Bachert
Wolfgang Petrich
Fred A Hamprecht

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRegularized regression methods such as principal component or partial least squares regression perform well in learning tasks on high dimensional spectral data, but cannot explicitly eliminate irrelevant features. The random forest classifier with its associated Gini feature importance, on the other hand, allows for an explicit feature elimination, but may not be optimally adapted to spectral data due to the topology of its constituent classification trees which are based on orthogonal splits in feature space.

resultsWe propose to combine the best of both approaches, and evaluated the joint use of a feature selection based on a recursive feature elimination using the Gini importance of random forests' together with regularized classification methods on spectral data sets from medical diagnostics, chemotaxonomy, biomedical analytics, food science, and synthetically modified spectral data. Here, a feature selection using the Gini feature importance with a regularized classification by discriminant partial least squares regression performed as well as or better than a filtering according to different univariate statistical tests, or using regression coefficients in a backward feature elimination. It outperformed the direct application of the random forest classifier, or the direct application of the regularized classifiers on the full set of features.

conclusionThe Gini importance of the random forest provided superior means for measuring feature relevance on spectral data, but - on an optimal subset of features - the regularized classifiers might be preferable over the random forest classifier, in spite of their limitation to model linear dependencies only. A feature selection based on Gini importance, however, may precede a regularized linear classification to identify this optimal subset of features, and to earn a double benefit of both dimensionality reduction and the elimination of noise from the classification task.

Indexed as

ClassificationComputational BiologyMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyModels, StatisticalPattern Recognition, AutomatedRegression AnalysisSpectrophotometry, Infrared

Identifiers

PMID19591666
PMCPMC2724423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.