ArticleProceedings of machine learning research2021
Hierarchical Information Criterion for Variable Abstraction.
Article in Proceedings of machine learning research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying the Contributions of Food, Glucose, Sleep, and Microbiome Data to Personalized Glycemic Response Prediction.Current developments in nutrition · 2026Article
- Structure-based chemical ontology improves chemometric prediction of antibacterial essential oils.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Large biomedical datasets can contain thousands of variables, creating challenges for machine learning tasks such as causal inference and prediction. Feature selection and ranking methods have been developed to reduce the number of variables and determine which are most important. However in many cases, such as in classification from diagnosis codes, ontologies, and controlled vocabularies, we must choose not only which variables to include but also at what level of granularity. ICD-9 codes, for example, are arranged in a hierarchy, and a user must decide at what level codes should be analyzed. Thus it is currently up to a researcher to decide whether to use any diagnosis of diabetes or whether to distinguish between specific forms, such as Type 2 diabetes with renal complications versus without mention of complications. Currently, there is no existing method that can automatically make this determination and methods for feature selection do not exploit this hierarchical information, which is found in other areas including nutrition (hierarchies of foods), and bioinformatics (hierarchical relationship of genes). To address this, we propose a novel Hierarchical Information Criterion (HIC) that builds on mutual information and allows fully automated abstraction of variables. Using HIC allows us to rank hierarchical features and select the ones with the highest score. We show that this significantly improves performance by an average AUROC of 0.053 over traditional feature selection methods and hand crafted features on two mortality prediction tasks using MIMIC-III ICU data. Our method also improves on the state of the art (Fu et al., 2019) with an AUROC increase from 0.819 to 0.887.
Identifiers
35072086PMC8782429W4207087185What 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.