ArticlePeerJ2016
The impact of feature selection on one and two-class classification performance for plant microRNAs.
Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Based Ensemble Feature Selection and Nested Cross-Validation for miRNA Biomarker Discovery in Usher Syndrome.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Circular RNA-MicroRNA-MRNA interaction predictions in SARS-CoV-2 infection.Journal of integrative bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Development of species specific putative miRNA and its target prediction tool in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.).Scientific reports · 2019Article
- A Review of Matched-pairs Feature Selection Methods for Gene Expression Data Analysis.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2018Review
- MicroRNA categorization using sequence motifs and k-mers.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
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
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short nucleotide sequences that form a typical hairpin structure which is recognized by a complex enzyme machinery. It ultimately leads to the incorporation of 18-24 nt long mature miRNAs into RISC where they act as recognition keys to aid in regulation of target mRNAs. It is involved to determine miRNAs experimentally and, therefore, machine learning is used to complement such endeavors. The success of machine learning mostly depends on proper input data and appropriate features for parameterization of the data. Although, in general, two-class classification (TCC) is used in the field; because negative examples are hard to come by, one-class classification (OCC) has been tried for pre-miRNA detection. Since both positive and negative examples are currently somewhat limited, feature selection can prove to be vital for furthering the field of pre-miRNA detection. In this study, we compare the performance of OCC and TCC using eight feature selection methods and seven different plant species providing positive pre-miRNA examples. Feature selection was very successful for OCC where the best feature selection method achieved an average accuracy of 95.6%, thereby being ∼29% better than the worst method which achieved 66.9% accuracy. While the performance is comparable to TCC, which performs up to 3% better than OCC, TCC is much less affected by feature selection and its largest performance gap is ∼13% which only occurs for two of the feature selection methodologies. We conclude that feature selection is crucially important for OCC and that it can perform on par with TCC given the proper set of features.
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.