Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36304293›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioinformatics2022

A Review of Feature Selection Methods for Machine Learning-Based Disease Risk Prediction.

Nicholas Pudjihartono, Tayaza Fadason, Andreas W Kempa-Liehr, Justin M O'Sullivan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 272 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
272citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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

272 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. The Utility of Machine Learning-Enhanced Developmental Cascade Models in Prevention Science.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

212 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Nicholas PudjihartonoLiggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Tayaza FadasonLiggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Andreas W Kempa-LiehrDepartment of Engineering Science, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Justin M O'SullivanLiggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning has shown utility in detecting patterns within large, unstructured, and complex datasets. One of the promising applications of machine learning is in precision medicine, where disease risk is predicted using patient genetic data. However, creating an accurate prediction model based on genotype data remains challenging due to the so-called "curse of dimensionality" (i.e., extensively larger number of features compared to the number of samples). Therefore, the generalizability of machine learning models benefits from feature selection, which aims to extract only the most "informative" features and remove noisy "non-informative," irrelevant and redundant features. In this article, we provide a general overview of the different feature selection methods, their advantages, disadvantages, and use cases, focusing on the detection of relevant features (i.e., SNPs) for disease risk prediction.

Indexed as

disease risk predictionfeature selection (FS)machine learingrisk predictionstatistical approaches

Identifiers

PMID36304293
PMCPMC9580915

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.