Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27920952›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2016

A methodology for the design of experiments in computational intelligence with multiple regression models.

Carlos Fernandez-Lozano, Marcos Gestal, Cristian R Munteanu, Julian Dorado, Alejandro Pazos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A review on machine learning approaches and trends in drug discovery.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021
    Review
  5. Machine learning analysis of TCGA cancer data.PeerJ. Computer science · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Carlos Fernandez-LozanoInformation and Communications Technologies Department, University of A Coruna , A Coruña , Spain.
Marcos GestalInformation and Communications Technologies Department, University of A Coruna , A Coruña , Spain.
Cristian R MunteanuInformation and Communications Technologies Department, University of A Coruna , A Coruña , Spain.
Julian DoradoInformation and Communications Technologies Department, University of A Coruna , A Coruña , Spain.
Alejandro PazosInformation and Communications Technologies Department, University of A Coruna, A Coruña, Spain; Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña (CHUAC), Instituto de Investigacion Biomedica de A Coruña (INIBIC), A Coruña, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Computational intelligenceExperimental designMachine learningMethodologyRRregrsStatistical analysis

Identifiers

PMID27920952
PMCPMC5136129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.