ArticleBMC systems biology2014
Learning accurate and interpretable models based on regularized random forests regression.
Article in BMC systems biology, 2014. 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.
- Where Do We Stand in Regularization for Life Science Studies?Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2022Article
- Model Simplification of Deep Random Forest for Real-Time Applications of Various Sensor Data.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- An ensemble machine learning model based on multiple filtering and supervised attribute clustering algorithm for classifying cancer samples.PeerJ. Computer science · 2021Article
- Intracranial Densitometry-Augmented Machine Learning Enhances the Prognostic Value of Brain CT in Pediatric Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective Pilot Study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- Site-specific investigation and spatial modeling of canopy drip effect on element concentrations in moss.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018Article
- Improving the explainability of Random Forest classifier - user centered approach.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany biology related research works combine data from multiple sources in an effort to understand the underlying problems. It is important to find and interpret the most important information from these sources. Thus it will be beneficial to have an effective algorithm that can simultaneously extract decision rules and select critical features for good interpretation while preserving the prediction performance.
methodsIn this study, we focus on regression problems for biological data where target outcomes are continuous. In general, models constructed from linear regression approaches are relatively easy to interpret. However, many practical biological applications are nonlinear in essence where we can hardly find a direct linear relationship between input and output. Nonlinear regression techniques can reveal nonlinear relationship of data, but are generally hard for human to interpret. We propose a rule based regression algorithm that uses 1-norm regularized random forests. The proposed approach simultaneously extracts a small number of rules from generated random forests and eliminates unimportant features.
resultsWe tested the approach on some biological data sets. The proposed approach is able to construct a significantly smaller set of regression rules using a subset of attributes while achieving prediction performance comparable to that of random forests regression.
conclusionIt demonstrates high potential in aiding prediction and interpretation of nonlinear relationships of the subject being studied.
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.