ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2020
Error curves for evaluating the quality of feature rankings.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2020. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this article, we propose a method for evaluating feature ranking algorithms. A feature ranking algorithm estimates the importance of descriptive features when predicting the target variable, and the proposed method evaluates the correctness of these importance values by computing the error measures of two chains of predictive models. The models in the first chain are built on nested sets of top-ranked features, while the models in the other chain are built on nested sets of bottom ranked features. We investigate which predictive models are appropriate for building these chains, showing empirically that the proposed method gives meaningful results and can detect differences in feature ranking quality. This is first demonstrated on synthetic data, and then on several real-world classification benchmark problems.
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.