Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34203274›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Experimental Study and Comparison of Imbalance Ensemble Classifiers with Dynamic Selection Strategy.

Dongxue Zhao, Xin Wang, Yashuang Mu, Lidong Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Dongxue ZhaoSchool of Science, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China.
Xin WangSchool of Science, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China.
Yashuang MuSchool of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou 450001, China.
Lidong WangSchool of Science, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1462-9443

Funding

Science and technology project of science and technology department of Henan province 212102210149the Natural Science Foundation of China 61803065the Natural Science Foundation of China 62006071
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imbalance ensemble classification is one of the most essential and practical strategies for improving decision performance in data analysis. There is a growing body of literature about ensemble techniques for imbalance learning in recent years, the various extensions of imbalanced classification methods were established from different points of view. The present study is initiated in an attempt to review the state-of-the-art ensemble classification algorithms for dealing with imbalanced datasets, offering a comprehensive analysis for incorporating the dynamic selection of base classifiers in classification. By conducting 14 existing ensemble algorithms incorporating a dynamic selection on 56 datasets, the experimental results reveal that the classical algorithm with a dynamic selection strategy deliver a practical way to improve the classification performance for both a binary class and multi-class imbalanced datasets. In addition, by combining patch learning with a dynamic selection ensemble classification, a patch-ensemble classification method is designed, which utilizes the misclassified samples to train patch classifiers for increasing the diversity of base classifiers. The experiments' results indicate that the designed method has a certain potential for the performance of multi-class imbalanced classification.

Indexed as

dynamic selectionensemble classificationimbalanced data classificationmulti-class classification

Identifiers

PMID34203274
PMCPMC8307085

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.