ArticleCurrent genomics2009
Performance of feature selection methods.
Article in Current genomics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robustly enhancing crop genomic prediction accuracy through ensemble learning and iterative optimization.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Machine learning predictive performance evaluation of conventional and fuzzy radiomics in clinical cancer imaging cohorts.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Article
- ShinyLearner: A containerized benchmarking tool for machine-learning classification of tabular data.GigaScience · 2020Article
- Selecting Optimal Random Forest Predictive Models: A Case Study on Predicting the Spatial Distribution of Seabed Hardness.PloS one · 2016Article
- Predictive Power Estimation Algorithm (PPEA)--a new algorithm to reduce overfitting for genomic biomarker discovery.PloS one · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-throughput biological technologies offer the promise of finding feature sets to serve as biomarkers for medical applications; however, the sheer number of potential features (genes, proteins, etc.) means that there needs to be massive feature selection, far greater than that envisioned in the classical literature. This paper considers performance analysis for feature-selection algorithms from two fundamental perspectives: How does the classification accuracy achieved with a selected feature set compare to the accuracy when the best feature set is used and what is the optimal number of features that should be used? The criteria manifest themselves in several issues that need to be considered when examining the efficacy of a feature-selection algorithm: (1) the correlation between the classifier errors for the selected feature set and the theoretically best feature set; (2) the regressions of the aforementioned errors upon one another; (3) the peaking phenomenon, that is, the effect of sample size on feature selection; and (4) the analysis of feature selection in the framework of high-dimensional models corresponding to high-throughput data.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.