ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2012
Performance reproducibility index for classification.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Pathway Activation for a Single Sample Toward Inflammatory Bowel Disease Classification.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- On optimal Bayesian classification and risk estimation under multiple classes.EURASIP journal on bioinformatics & systems biology · 2015Article
- High-Dimensional Statistical Learning: Roots, Justifications, and Potential Machineries.Cancer informatics · 2015Review
- Data Requirements for Model-Based Cancer Prognosis Prediction.Cancer informatics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationA common practice in biomarker discovery is to decide whether a large laboratory experiment should be carried out based on the results of a preliminary study on a small set of specimens. Consideration of the efficacy of this approach motivates the introduction of a probabilistic measure, for whether a classifier showing promising results in a small-sample preliminary study will perform similarly on a large independent sample. Given the error estimate from the preliminary study, if the probability of reproducible error is low, then there is really no purpose in substantially allocating more resources to a large follow-on study. Indeed, if the probability of the preliminary study providing likely reproducible results is small, then why even perform the preliminary study?
resultsThis article introduces a reproducibility index for classification, measuring the probability that a sufficiently small error estimate on a small sample will motivate a large follow-on study. We provide a simulation study based on synthetic distribution models that possess known intrinsic classification difficulties and emulate real-world scenarios. We also set up similar simulations on four real datasets to show the consistency of results. The reproducibility indices for different distributional models, real datasets and classification schemes are empirically calculated. The effects of reporting and multiple-rule biases on the reproducibility index are also analyzed. AVAILABILITY: We have implemented in C code the synthetic data distribution model, classification rules, feature selection routine and error estimation methods. The source code is available at http://gsp.tamu.edu/Publications/supplementary/yousefi12a/.
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.