ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2022
Evaluating hierarchical machine learning approaches to classify biological databases.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hierarchical multi-label structuring of Japanese SOAP clinical notes with large language models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Machine learning prediction of pharmacist intervention benefit in tuberculosis patients using clinical parameters: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Multi-scale classification decodes the complexity of the human E3 ligome.Nature communications · 2025Article
- CREATE: a novel attention-based framework for efficient classification of transposable elements.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- GPSai: A Clinically Validated AI Tool for Tissue of Origin Prediction during Routine Tumor Profiling.Cancer research communications · 2025Article
- UniCor and UniCorP: a novel metric and hierarchical feature selection algorithm for microbial community analysis.ISME communications · 2025Article
- Severity of error in hierarchical datasets.Scientific reports · 2023Article
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
The rate of biological data generation has increased dramatically in recent years, which has driven the importance of databases as a resource to guide innovation and the generation of biological insights. Given the complexity and scale of these databases, automatic data classification is often required. Biological data sets are often hierarchical in nature, with varying degrees of complexity, imposing different challenges to train, test and validate accurate and generalizable classification models. While some approaches to classify hierarchical data have been proposed, no guidelines regarding their utility, applicability and limitations have been explored or implemented. These include 'Local' approaches considering the hierarchy, building models per level or node, and 'Global' hierarchical classification, using a flat classification approach. To fill this gap, here we have systematically contrasted the performance of 'Local per Level' and 'Local per Node' approaches with a 'Global' approach applied to two different hierarchical datasets: BioLip and CATH. The results show how different components of hierarchical data sets, such as variation coefficient and prediction by depth, can guide the choice of appropriate classification schemes. Finally, we provide guidelines to support this process when embarking on a hierarchical classification task, which will help optimize computational resources and predictive performance.
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.