ArticlePeerJ2016
A methodology for the design of experiments in computational intelligence with multiple regression models.
Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Soft Computing Approaches toward Density-Based Analysis of Many-Electron Systems.ACS physical chemistry Au · 2026Review
- Data-mining unveils structure-property-activity correlation of viral infectivity enhancing self-assembling peptides.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Analysis of merged whole blood transcriptomic datasets to identify circulating molecular biomarkers of feed efficiency in growing pigs.BMC genomics · 2021Article
- A review on machine learning approaches and trends in drug discovery.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Review
- Machine learning analysis of TCGA cancer data.PeerJ. Computer science · 2021Article
- Comparison of Outlier-Tolerant Models for Measuring Visual Complexity.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Identification of predictive factors of the degree of adherence to the Mediterranean diet through machine-learning techniques.PeerJ. Computer science · 2020Article
- Improvement of Epitope Prediction Using Peptide Sequence Descriptors and Machine Learning.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- Automated Neuron Detection in High-Content Fluorescence Microscopy Images Using Machine Learning.Neuroinformatics · 2019Article
- Machine learning applied to transcriptomic data to identify genes associated with feed efficiency in pigs.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2019Article
- Article
- Prediction of high anti-angiogenic activity peptides in silico using a generalized linear model and feature selection.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Decrypting Strong and Weak Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes Interactions with Mitochondrial Voltage-Dependent Anion Channels Using Molecular Docking and Perturbation Theory.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Functional recovery differences after stroke rehabilitation in patients with uni- or bilateral hemiparesis.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The design of experiments and the validation of the results achieved with them are vital in any research study. This paper focuses on the use of different Machine Learning approaches for regression tasks in the field of Computational Intelligence and especially on a correct comparison between the different results provided for different methods, as those techniques are complex systems that require further study to be fully understood. A methodology commonly accepted in Computational intelligence is implemented in an R package called RRegrs. This package includes ten simple and complex regression models to carry out predictive modeling using Machine Learning and well-known regression algorithms. The framework for experimental design presented herein is evaluated and validated against RRegrs. Our results are different for three out of five state-of-the-art simple datasets and it can be stated that the selection of the best model according to our proposal is statistically significant and relevant. It is of relevance to use a statistical approach to indicate whether the differences are statistically significant using this kind of algorithms. Furthermore, our results with three real complex datasets report different best models than with the previously published methodology. Our final goal is to provide a complete methodology for the use of different steps in order to compare the results obtained in Computational Intelligence problems, as well as from other fields, such as for bioinformatics, cheminformatics, etc., given that our proposal is open and modifiable.
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.