Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33574440›Full record

ArticleLaboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology2021

Performance and efficiency of machine learning algorithms for analyzing rectangular biomedical data.

Fei Deng, Jibing Huang, Xiaoling Yuan, Chao Cheng, Lanjing Zhang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Unveiling preeclampsia: diagnostic value and potential molecular mechanisms of abnormally methylated immune-related genes.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. 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

5 authors.

Fei DengSchool of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Shanghai Institute of Technology, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7600-6295
Jibing HuangSchool of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Shanghai Institute of Technology, Shanghai, China.
Xiaoling YuanDepartment of Infectious Disease, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Shanghai, Shanghai, China.
Chao ChengDepartment of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5002-3417
Lanjing ZhangDepartment of Pathology, Princeton Medical Center, Plainsboro, NJ, USA. lanjing.zhang@rutgers.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5436-887X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most biomedical datasets, including those of 'omics, population studies, and surveys, are rectangular in shape and have few missing data. Recently, their sample sizes have grown significantly. Rigorous analyses on these large datasets demand considerably more efficient and more accurate algorithms. Machine learning (ML) algorithms have been used to classify outcomes in biomedical datasets, including random forests (RF), decision tree (DT), artificial neural networks (ANN), and support vector machine (SVM). However, their performance and efficiency in classifying multi-category outcomes of rectangular data are poorly understood. Therefore, we compared these metrics among the 4 ML algorithms. As an example, we created a large rectangular dataset using the female breast cancers in the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results-18 database, which were diagnosed in 2004 and followed up until December 2016. The outcome was the five-category cause of death, namely alive, non-breast cancer, breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other cause. We analyzed the 54 dichotomized features from ~45,000 patients using MatLab (version 2018a) and the tenfold cross-validation approach. The accuracy in classifying five-category cause of death with DT, RF, ANN, and SVM was 69.21%, 70.23%, 70.16%, and 69.06%, respectively, which was higher than the accuracy of 68.12% with multinomial logistic regression. Based on the features' information entropy, we optimized dimension reduction (i.e., reduce the number of features in models). We found 32 or more features were required to maintain similar accuracy, while the running time decreased from 55.57 s for 54 features to 25.99 s for 32 features in RF, from 12.92 s to 10.48 s in ANN, and from 175.50 s to 67.81 s in SVM. In summary, we here show that RF, DT, ANN, and SVM had similar accuracy for classifying multi-category outcomes in this large rectangular dataset. Dimension reduction based on information gain will increase the model's efficiency while maintaining classification accuracy.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMachine LearningAgedBreast NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSupport Vector Machine

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.