ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2011
Multiple-rule bias in the comparison of classification rules.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bootstrapping the out-of-sample predictions for efficient and accurate cross-validation.Machine learning · 2018Article
- A comparison of machine learning methods for classification using simulation with multiple real data examples from mental health studies.Statistical methods in medical research · 2016Article
- On optimal Bayesian classification and risk estimation under multiple classes.EURASIP journal on bioinformatics & systems biology · 2015Article
- On the impoverishment of scientific education.EURASIP journal on bioinformatics & systems biology · 2013Article
- Modeling the next generation sequencing sample processing pipeline for the purposes of classification.BMC bioinformatics · 2013Article
- Performance reproducibility index for classification.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2012Article
- The illusion of distribution-free small-sample classification in genomics.Current genomics · 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
Abstract
motivationThere is growing discussion in the bioinformatics community concerning overoptimism of reported results. Two approaches contributing to overoptimism in classification are (i) the reporting of results on datasets for which a proposed classification rule performs well and (ii) the comparison of multiple classification rules on a single dataset that purports to show the advantage of a certain rule.
resultsThis article provides a careful probabilistic analysis of the second issue and the 'multiple-rule bias', resulting from choosing a classification rule having minimum estimated error on the dataset. It quantifies this bias corresponding to estimating the expected true error of the classification rule possessing minimum estimated error and it characterizes the bias from estimating the true comparative advantage of the chosen classification rule relative to the others by the estimated comparative advantage on the dataset. The analysis is applied to both synthetic and real data using a number of classification rules and error estimators. AVAILABILITY: We have implemented in C code the synthetic data distribution model, classification rules, feature selection routines and error estimation methods. The code for multiple-rule analysis is implemented in MATLAB. The source code is available at http://gsp.tamu.edu/Publications/supplementary/yousefi11a/. Supplementary simulation results are also included.
Indexed as
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.