ArticleBioData mining2017
A feature selection method based on multiple kernel learning with expression profiles of different types.
Article in BioData mining, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking omics-based prediction of asthma development in children.Respiratory research · 2023Article
- Visual expertise modulates resting-state brain network dynamics in radiologists: a degree centrality analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Article
- Classifying Breast Cancer Subtypes Using Deep Neural Networks Based on Multi-Omics Data.Genes · 2020Article
- Optimized Mahalanobis-Taguchi System for High-Dimensional Small Sample Data Classification.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2020Article
- Two-Stage Hybrid Gene Selection Using Mutual Information and Genetic Algorithm for Cancer Data Classification.Journal of medical systems · 2019Article
- Overexpressed long noncoding RNA CRNDE with distinct alternatively spliced isoforms in multiple cancers.Frontiers of medicine · 2019Article
- Article
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
backgroundWith the development of high-throughput technology, the researchers can acquire large number of expression data with different types from several public databases. Because most of these data have small number of samples and hundreds or thousands features, how to extract informative features from expression data effectively and robustly using feature selection technique is challenging and crucial. So far, a mass of many feature selection approaches have been proposed and applied to analyse expression data of different types. However, most of these methods only are limited to measure the performances on one single type of expression data by accuracy or error rate of classification.
resultsIn this article, we propose a hybrid feature selection method based on Multiple Kernel Learning (MKL) and evaluate the performance on expression datasets of different types. Firstly, the relevance between features and classifying samples is measured by using the optimizing function of MKL. In this step, an iterative gradient descent process is used to perform the optimization both on the parameters of Support Vector Machine (SVM) and kernel confidence. Then, a set of relevant features is selected by sorting the optimizing function of each feature. Furthermore, we apply an embedded scheme of forward selection to detect the compact feature subsets from the relevant feature set.
conclusionsWe not only compare the classification accuracy with other methods, but also compare the stability, similarity and consistency of different algorithms. The proposed method has a satisfactory capability of feature selection for analysing expression datasets of different types using different performance measurements.
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.