Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28199352›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Nearest shrunken centroids via alternative genewise shrinkages.

Byeong Yeob Choi, Eric Bair, Jae Won Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Byeong Yeob ChoiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, United States of America.
Eric BairDepartment of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America.
Jae Won LeeDepartment of Statistics, Korea University, Anam-Dong, Seoul, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nearest shrunken centroids (NSC) is a popular classification method for microarray data. NSC calculates centroids for each class and "shrinks" the centroids toward 0 using soft thresholding. Future observations are then assigned to the class with the minimum distance between the observation and the (shrunken) centroid. Under certain conditions the soft shrinkage used by NSC is equivalent to a LASSO penalty. However, this penalty can produce biased estimates when the true coefficients are large. In addition, NSC ignores the fact that multiple measures of the same gene are likely to be related to one another. We consider several alternative genewise shrinkage methods to address the aforementioned shortcomings of NSC. Three alternative penalties were considered: the smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD), the adaptive LASSO (ADA), and the minimax concave penalty (MCP). We also showed that NSC can be performed in a genewise manner. Classification methods were derived for each alternative shrinkage method or alternative genewise penalty, and the performance of each new classification method was compared with that of conventional NSC on several simulated and real microarray data sets. Moreover, we applied the geometric mean approach for the alternative penalty functions. In general the alternative (genewise) penalties required fewer genes than NSC. The geometric mean of the class-specific prediction accuracies was improved, as well as the overall predictive accuracy in some cases. These results indicate that these alternative penalties should be considered when using NSC.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBreast NeoplasmsCentral Nervous System DiseasesComputer SimulationFemaleHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis

Identifiers

PMID28199352
PMCPMC5310887

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.