Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25279246›Full record

ArticleJournal de la Societe francaise de statistique (2009)2014

Comparing Model Selection and Regularization Approaches to Variable Selection in Model-Based Clustering.

Gilles Celeux, Marie-Laure Martin-Magniette, Cathy Maugis-Rabusseau, Adrian E Raftery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal de la Societe francaise de statistique (2009), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

4 authors.

Gilles CeleuxInria Saclay - Île-de-France, Orsay, France. gilles.celeux@inria.fr.
Marie-Laure Martin-MagnietteUMR INRA 1165 - UEVE, ERL CNRS 8196, Unité de Recherche en Génomique Végétale UMR INRA 1165-UEVE ERL CNRS 8196, Evry, France. UMR AgroParisTech/INRA MIA 518, Paris, France. marie_laure.martin@agroparistech.fr.
Cathy Maugis-RabusseauInstitut de Mathématiques de Toulouse, INSA de Toulouse, Université de Toulouse. cathy.maugis@insa-toulouse.fr.
Adrian E RafteryDepartment of Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA, and School of Mathematical Sciences, University College Dublin, Ireland. raftery@u.washington.edu.

Funding

Methods and Data CoreR24HD042828 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI MAR, CORINNE M · 2002 to 2016
$9.3M
Statistical Methods for Population ProjectionsR01HD070936 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI RAFTERY, ADRIAN E · 2012 to 2021
$3.3M
Sexually Transmitted Infection Epidemics: Bayesian Prevalence & Size EstimateR01HD054511 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI RAFTERY, ADRIAN E · 2007 to 2016
$3.2M
Prediction and Network Construction Using High-throughput DataR01GM084163 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI YEUNG-RHEE, KA YEE · 2008 to 2012
$2.6M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD054511NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD070936NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD042828NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM084163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We compare two major approaches to variable selection in clustering: model selection and regularization. Based on previous results, we select the method of Maugis et al. (2009b), which modified the method of Raftery and Dean (2006), as a current state of the art model selection method. We select the method of Witten and Tibshirani (2010) as a current state of the art regularization method. We compared the methods by simulation in terms of their accuracy in both classification and variable selection. In the first simulation experiment all the variables were conditionally independent given cluster membership. We found that variable selection (of either kind) yielded substantial gains in classification accuracy when the clusters were well separated, but few gains when the clusters were close together. We found that the two variable selection methods had comparable classification accuracy, but that the model selection approach had substantially better accuracy in selecting variables. In our second simulation experiment, there were correlations among the variables given the cluster memberships. We found that the model selection approach was substantially more accurate in terms of both classification and variable selection than the regularization approach, and that both gave more accurate classifications than

Indexed as

Model-based clusteringModel selectionRegularization approachVariable selection

Identifiers

PMID25279246
PMCPMC4178956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.