Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33534111›Full record

ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2021

Item response theory as a feature selection and interpretation tool in the context of machine learning.

Adrienne S Kline, Theresa J B Kline, Joon Lee

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Adrienne S KlineDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. askline1@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0052-0685
Theresa J B KlineDepartment of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6476-3846
Joon LeeData Intelligence for Health Lab, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8593-9321

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimizing the number and utility of features to use in a classification analysis has been the subject of many research studies. Most current models use end-classifications as part of the feature reduction process, leading to circularity in the methodology. The approach demonstrated in the present research uses item response theory (IRT) to select features independent of the end-classification results without the biased accuracies that this circularity engenders. Dichotomous and polytomous IRT models were used to analyze 30 histological breast cancer features from 569 patients using the Wisconsin Diagnostic Breast Cancer data set. Based on their characteristics, three features were selected for use in a machine learning classifier. For comparison purposes, two machine learning-based feature selection protocols were run-recursive feature elimination (RFE) and ridge regression-and the three features selected from these analyses were also used in the subsequent learning classifier. Classification results demonstrated that all three selection processes performed comparably. The non-biased nature of the IRT protocol and information provided about the specific characteristics of the features as to why they are of use in classification help to shed light on understanding which attributes of features make them suitable for use in a machine learning context.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSupport Vector MachineHumansBreast cancerFeature selectionItem response theoryMachine learning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.