ArticlePacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing2019
Estimating classification accuracy in positive-unlabeled learning: characterization and correction strategies.
Article in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fair positive unlabeled learning for predicting undiagnosed Alzheimer's disease in diverse electronic health records.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Functional profiling of the sequence stockpile: a protein pair-based assessment of in silico prediction tools.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Predicting Hospitalization among Medicaid Home- and Community-Based Services Users Using Machine Learning Methods.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2023Article
- Detecting biased validation of predictive models in the positive-unlabeled setting: disease gene prioritization case study.Bioinformatics advances · 2023Article
- Prioritizing de novo autism risk variants with calibrated gene- and variant-scoring models.Human genetics · 2022Article
- Classification in biological networks with hypergraphlet kernels.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- The Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) is more reliable than balanced accuracy, bookmaker informedness, and markedness in two-class confusion matrix evaluation.BioData mining · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurately estimating performance accuracy of machine learning classifiers is of fundamental importance in biomedical research with potentially societal consequences upon the deployment of bestperforming tools in everyday life. Although classification has been extensively studied over the past decades, there remain understudied problems when the training data violate the main statistical assumptions relied upon for accurate learning and model characterization. This particularly holds true in the open world setting where observations of a phenomenon generally guarantee its presence but the absence of such evidence cannot be interpreted as the evidence of its absence. Learning from such data is often referred to as positive-unlabeled learning, a form of semi-supervised learning where all labeled data belong to one (say, positive) class. To improve the best practices in the field, we here study the quality of estimated performance in positive-unlabeled learning in the biomedical domain. We provide evidence that such estimates can be wildly inaccurate, depending on the fraction of positive examples in the unlabeled data and the fraction of negative examples mislabeled as positives in the labeled data. We then present correction methods for four such measures and demonstrate that the knowledge or accurate estimates of class priors in the unlabeled data and noise in the labeled data are sufficient for the recovery of true classification performance. We provide theoretical support as well as empirical evidence for the efficacy of the new performance estimation methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30864316PMC6417800What 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.