Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28674556›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2017

EFS: an ensemble feature selection tool implemented as R-package and web-application.

Ursula Neumann, Nikita Genze, Dominik Heider

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Differentiation of autism spectrum disorder and mood or anxiety disorder.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Dissecting the Genome for Drug Response Prediction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Review
  20. 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.

Ursula NeumannStraubing Center of Science, Schulgasse 22, Straubing, 94315 Germany.
Nikita GenzeStraubing Center of Science, Schulgasse 22, Straubing, 94315 Germany.
Dominik HeiderStraubing Center of Science, Schulgasse 22, Straubing, 94315 Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFeature selection methods aim at identifying a subset of features that improve the prediction performance of subsequent classification models and thereby also simplify their interpretability. Preceding studies demonstrated that single feature selection methods can have specific biases, whereas an ensemble feature selection has the advantage to alleviate and compensate for these biases.

resultsThe software EFS (Ensemble Feature Selection) makes use of multiple feature selection methods and combines their normalized outputs to a quantitative ensemble importance. Currently, eight different feature selection methods have been integrated in EFS, which can be used separately or combined in an ensemble.

conclusionEFS identifies relevant features while compensating specific biases of single methods due to an ensemble approach. Thereby, EFS can improve the prediction accuracy and interpretability in subsequent binary classification models. AVAILABILITY: EFS can be downloaded as an R-package from CRAN or used via a web application at http://EFS.heiderlab.de.

Indexed as

Ensemble learningFeature selectionMachine learningR-package

Identifiers

PMID28674556
PMCPMC5488355

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.