Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33297937›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2020

So you think you can PLS-DA?

Daniel Ruiz-Perez, Haibin Guan, Purnima Madhivanan, Kalai Mathee, Giri Narasimhan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 156 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
156citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

156 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Second-trimester multimetabolite panel for early preeclampsia rule-out.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Lipidomic profiles associated with treatment related hepatotoxicity in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

96 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Daniel Ruiz-PerezBioinformatics Research Group (BioRG), Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th St, Miami, 33199, FL, USA.
Haibin GuanBioinformatics Research Group (BioRG), Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th St, Miami, 33199, FL, USA.
Purnima MadhivananDepartment of Epidemiology, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th St, Miami, 24105, FL, USA.
Kalai MatheeHerbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th St, Miami, 24105, FL, USA.
Giri NarasimhanBioinformatics Research Group (BioRG), Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th St, Miami, 33199, FL, USA. giri@cs.fiu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPartial Least-Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) is a popular machine learning tool that is gaining increasing attention as a useful feature selector and classifier. In an effort to understand its strengths and weaknesses, we performed a series of experiments with synthetic data and compared its performance to its close relative from which it was initially invented, namely Principal Component Analysis (PCA).

resultsWe demonstrate that even though PCA ignores the information regarding the class labels of the samples, this unsupervised tool can be remarkably effective as a feature selector. In some cases, it outperforms PLS-DA, which is made aware of the class labels in its input. Our experiments range from looking at the signal-to-noise ratio in the feature selection task, to considering many practical distributions and models encountered when analyzing bioinformatics and clinical data. Other methods were also evaluated. Finally, we analyzed an interesting data set from 396 vaginal microbiome samples where the ground truth for the feature selection was available. All the 3D figures shown in this paper as well as the supplementary ones can be viewed interactively at http://biorg.cs.fiu.edu/plsda

conclusionsOur results highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of PLS-DA in comparison with PCA for different underlying data models.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyDiscriminant AnalysisLeast-Squares AnalysisMachine LearningPrincipal Component AnalysisBioinformaticsDimensionality reductionFeature selectionPCAPLS-DA

Identifiers

PMID33297937
PMCPMC7724830

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.