Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37522865›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2023

Exploitation of surrogate variables in random forests for unbiased analysis of mutual impact and importance of features.

Lucas F Voges, Lukas C Jarren, Stephan Seifert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Lucas F VogesCentre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures (CSMC), Universität Hamburg, Hamburg 20354, Germany.
Lukas C JarrenCentre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures (CSMC), Universität Hamburg, Hamburg 20354, Germany.
Stephan SeifertCentre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures (CSMC), Universität Hamburg, Hamburg 20354, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2567-5728

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationRandom forest is a popular machine learning approach for the analysis of high-dimensional data because it is flexible and provides variable importance measures for the selection of relevant features. However, the complex relationships between the features are usually not considered for the selection and thus also neglected for the characterization of the analysed samples.

resultsHere we propose two novel approaches that focus on the mutual impact of features in random forests. Mutual forest impact (MFI) is a relation parameter that evaluates the mutual association of the features to the outcome and, hence, goes beyond the analysis of correlation coefficients. Mutual impurity reduction (MIR) is an importance measure that combines this relation parameter with the importance of the individual features. MIR and MFI are implemented together with testing procedures that generate P-values for the selection of related and important features. Applications to one experimental and various simulated datasets and the comparison to other methods for feature selection and relation analysis show that MFI and MIR are very promising to shed light on the complex relationships between features and outcome. In addition, they are not affected by common biases, e.g. that features with many possible splits or high minor allele frequencies are preferred. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The approaches are implemented in Version 0.3.3 of the R package RFSurrogates that is available at github.com/AGSeifert/RFSurrogates and the data are available at doi.org/10.25592/uhhfdm.12620.

Indexed as

Machine LearningRandom ForestBiasGene Frequency

Identifiers

PMID37522865
PMCPMC10403431

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.