ArticleScientific reports2024
Importance estimate of features via analysis of their weight and gradient profile.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptive Redox Resistive Memory Programming for Efficient and Robust Class-Incremental Learning.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Article
- Grain-level micromechanical modeling and assessment of fatigue-critical pores using graph neural networks.npj computational materials · 2026Article
- Integrated framework for targeting dynamic penicillin-binding protein 2a via ensemble structural biology and deep generative modeling.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Explainability and importance estimate of time series classifier via embedded neural network.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of LDL cholesterol: performance evaluation and validation.PeerJ · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding what is important and redundant within data can improve the modelling process of neural networks by reducing unnecessary model complexity, training time and memory storage. This information is however not always priorly available nor trivial to obtain from neural networks. There are existing feature selection methods which utilise the internal working of a neural network for selection, however further analysis and interpretation of the input features' significance is often limiting. We propose an approach that offers an extension that estimates the significance of features by analysing the gradient descent of a pairwise layer within a model. The changes that occur with the weights and gradients throughout training provide a profile that can be used to better understand the importance hierarchy between the features for ranking and feature selection. Additionally, this method is transferable to existing fully or partially trained models, which is beneficial for understanding existing or active models. The proposed approach is demonstrated empirically with a study which uses benchmark datasets from libraries such as MNIST and scikit-feat, as well as a simulated dataset and an applied real world dataset. This is verified with the ground truth where available, and if not, via a comparison of fundamental feature selection methods, which includes existing statistical based and embedded neural network based feature selection methods through the methodology of Reduce and Retrain.
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.