ArticleBMC bioinformatics2015
Boosting for high-dimensional two-class prediction.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multidimensional analysis of the 21Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A CT-based decision tree model for differentiating sub-3 cm gastric ectopic pancreas from gastrointestinal stromal tumors.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Automated feature learning and survival prognostication in grade 4 glioma using supervised machine learning models.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Advanced machine learning schemes for prediction COJournal of advanced research · 2025Article
- Prediction of low Apgar score at five minutes following labor induction intervention in vaginal deliveries: machine learning approach for imbalanced data at a tertiary hospital in North Tanzania.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- VirVACPRED: A Web Server for Prediction of Protective Viral Antigens.International journal of peptide research and therapeutics · 2022Article
- A new method for exploring gene-gene and gene-environment interactions in GWAS with tree ensemble methods and SHAP values.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Stillbirth risk prediction using machine learning for a large cohort of births from Western Australia, 1980-2015.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Comparison of Machine Learning Techniques for Prediction of Hospitalization in Heart Failure Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Comparing deep belief networks with support vector machines for classifying gene expression data from complex disorders.FEBS open bio · 2019Article
- Exploring the clinical features of narcolepsy type 1 versus narcolepsy type 2 from European Narcolepsy Network database with machine learning.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- The parameter sensitivity of random forests.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn clinical research prediction models are used to accurately predict the outcome of the patients based on some of their characteristics. For high-dimensional prediction models (the number of variables greatly exceeds the number of samples) the choice of an appropriate classifier is crucial as it was observed that no single classification algorithm performs optimally for all types of data. Boosting was proposed as a method that combines the classification results obtained using base classifiers, where the sample weights are sequentially adjusted based on the performance in previous iterations. Generally boosting outperforms any individual classifier, but studies with high-dimensional data showed that the most standard boosting algorithm, AdaBoost.M1, cannot significantly improve the performance of its base classier. Recently other boosting algorithms were proposed (Gradient boosting, Stochastic Gradient boosting, LogitBoost); they were shown to perform better than AdaBoost.M1 but their performance was not evaluated for high-dimensional data.
resultsIn this paper we use simulation studies and real gene-expression data sets to evaluate the performance of boosting algorithms when data are high-dimensional. Our results confirm that AdaBoost.M1 can perform poorly in this setting, often failing to improve the performance of its base classifier. We provide the explanation for this and propose a modification, AdaBoost.M1.ICV, which uses cross-validated estimates of the prediction errors and outperforms the original algorithm when data are high-dimensional. The use of AdaBoost.M1.ICV is advisable when the base classifier overfits the training data: the number of variables is large, the number of samples is small, and/or the difference between the classes is large. To a lesser extent also Gradient boosting suffers from similar problems. Contrary to the findings for the low-dimensional data, shrinkage does not improve the performance of Gradient boosting when data are high-dimensional, however it is beneficial for Stochastic Gradient boosting, which outperformed the other boosting algorithms in our analyses. LogitBoost suffers from overfitting and generally performs poorly.
conclusionsThe results show that boosting can substantially improve the performance of its base classifier also when data are high-dimensional. However, not all boosting algorithms perform equally well. LogitBoost, AdaBoost.M1 and Gradient boosting seem less useful for this type of data. Overall, Stochastic Gradient boosting with shrinkage and AdaBoost.M1.ICV seem to be the preferable choices for high-dimensional class-prediction.
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.