ArticlePloS one2019
Model-free feature screening for categorical outcomes: Nonlinear effect detection and false discovery rate control.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Feature screening has become a real prerequisite for the analysis of high-dimensional genomic data, as it is effective in reducing dimensionality and removing redundant features. However, existing methods for feature screening have been mostly relying on the assumptions of linear effects and independence (or weak dependence) between features, which might be inappropriate in real practice. In this paper, we consider the problem of selecting continuous features for a categorical outcome from high-dimensional data. We propose a powerful statistical procedure that consists of two steps, a nonparametric significance test based on edge count and a multiple testing procedure with dependence adjustment for false discovery rate control. The new method presents two novelties. First, the edge-count test directly targets distributional difference between groups, therefore it is sensitive to nonlinear effects. Second, we relax the independence assumption and adapt Efron's procedure to adjust for the dependence between features. The performance of the proposed procedure, in terms of statistical power and false discovery rate, is illustrated by simulated data. We apply the new method to three genomic datasets to identify genes associated with colon, cervical and prostate cancers.
Indexed as
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.