Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36262135›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2022

Minimizing features while maintaining performance in data classification problems.

Surani Matharaarachchi, Mike Domaratzki, Saman Muthukumarana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Surani MatharaarachchiStatistics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Mike DomaratzkiComputer Science, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9129-6676
Saman MuthukumaranaStatistics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High dimensional classification problems have gained increasing attention in machine learning, and feature selection has become essential in executing machine learning algorithms. In general, most feature selection methods compare the scores of several feature subsets and select the one that gives the maximum score. There may be other selections of a lower number of features with a lower score, yet the difference is negligible. This article proposes and applies an extended version of such feature selection methods, which selects a smaller feature subset with similar performance to the original subset under a pre-defined threshold. It further validates the suggested extended version of the Principal Component Loading Feature Selection (PCLFS-ext) results by simulating data for several practical scenarios with different numbers of features and different imbalance rates on several classification methods. Our simulated results show that the proposed method outperforms the original PCLFS and existing Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) by giving reasonable feature reduction on various data sets, which is important in some applications.

Indexed as

ClassificationClass imbalanceFeature selectionPrincipal component loading

Identifiers

PMID36262135
PMCPMC9575878

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.