Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40595281›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Exploring unsupervised feature extraction algorithms: tackling high dimensionality in small datasets.

Hongqi Niu, Gabrielle B McCallum, Anne B Chang, Khalid Khan, Sami Azam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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. Review
  2. Review
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

5 authors.

Hongqi NiuFaculty of Science and Technology, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, 0909, Australia. hongqi.niu@cdu.edu.au.
Gabrielle B McCallumChild and Maternal Health Division and NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Paediatric Bronchiectasis (AusBREATHE), Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, 0810, Australia.
Anne B ChangChild and Maternal Health Division and NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Paediatric Bronchiectasis (AusBREATHE), Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, 0810, Australia.
Khalid KhanFaculty of Arts and Society, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, 0909, Australia.
Sami AzamFaculty of Science and Technology, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, 0909, Australia.

Funding

NHMRC Leadership (L3) fellowship 2025379
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Small datasets are common in many fields due to factors such as limited data collection opportunities or privacy concerns. These datasets often contain high-dimensional features, yet present significant challenges of dimensionality, wherein the sparsity of data in high-dimensional spaces makes it difficult to extract meaningful information and less accurate predictive models are produced. In this regard, feature extraction algorithms are important in addressing these challenges by reducing dimensionality while retaining essential information. These algorithms can be classified into supervised, unsupervised, and semi-supervised methods and categorized as linear or nonlinear. To overview this critical issue, this review focuses on unsupervised feature extraction algorithms (UFEAs) due to their ability to handle high-dimensional data without relying on labelled information. From this review, eight representative UFEAs were selected: principal component analysis, classical multidimensional scaling, Kernel PCA, isometric mapping, locally linear embedding, Laplacian Eigenmaps, independent component analysis and Autoencoders. The theoretical background of these algorithms has been presented, discussing their conceptual viewpoints, such as whether they are linear or nonlinear, manifold-based, probabilistic density function-based, or neural network-based. After classifying these algorithms using these taxonomies, we thoroughly and systematically reviewed each algorithm from the perspective of their working mechanisms, providing a detailed algorithmic explanation for each UFEA. We also explored how these mechanisms contribute to an effective reduction in dimensionality, particularly in small datasets with high dimensionality. Furthermore, we compared these algorithms in terms of transformation approach, goals, parameters, and computational complexity. Finally, we evaluated each algorithm against state-of-the-art research using various datasets to assess their accuracy, highlighting which algorithm is most appropriate for specific scenarios. Overall, this review provides insights into the strengths and weaknesses of various UFEAs, offering guidance on selecting appropriate algorithms for small high-dimensional datasets.

Indexed as

Feature extractionHigh dimensionalitySmall datasetsUnsupervised

Identifiers

PMID40595281
PMCPMC12216002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.