ArticleCancer informatics2015
Flow Cytometry-Based Classification in Cancer Research: A View on Feature Selection.
Article in Cancer informatics, 2015. 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.
- Trial
- Innovative Method for Fully Automated, Enzyme-Free Tissue Dissociation and Preparation for Single-Cell Analysis.Cellular and molecular bioengineering · 2025Article
- Feature selection revisited in the single-cell era.Genome biology · 2021Review
- Machine Learning of Discriminative Gate Locations for Clinical Diagnosis.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2020Article
- Improving Gastric Cancer Outcome Prediction Using Single Time-Point Artificial Neural Network Models.Cancer informatics · 2017Article
- Exploring the modulation of MLH1 and MSH2 gene expression in hesperetin-treated breast cancer cells (BT-474).Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, we study the problem of feature selection in cancer-related machine learning tasks. In particular, we study the accuracy and stability of different feature selection approaches within simplistic machine learning pipelines. Earlier studies have shown that for certain cases, the accuracy of detection can easily reach 100% given enough training data. Here, however, we concentrate on simplifying the classification models with and seek for feature selection approaches that are reliable even with extremely small sample sizes. We show that as much as 50% of features can be discarded without compromising the prediction accuracy. Moreover, we study the model selection problem among the ℓ 1 regularization path of logistic regression classifiers. To this aim, we compare a more traditional cross-validation approach with a recently proposed Bayesian error estimator.
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.