Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40870245›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Feature Ranking on Small Samples: A Bayes-Based Approach.

Aleksandra Vatian, Natalia Gusarova, Ivan Tomilov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Aleksandra VatianSchool of Translational Information Technologies, ITMO University, 197101 St. Petersburg, Russia.
Natalia GusarovaSchool of Translational Information Technologies, ITMO University, 197101 St. Petersburg, Russia.
Ivan TomilovSchool of Translational Information Technologies, ITMO University, 197101 St. Petersburg, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the modern world, there is a need to provide a better understanding of the importance or relevance of the available descriptive features for predicting target attributes to solve the feature ranking problem. Among the published works, the vast majority are devoted to the problems of feature selection and extraction, and not the problems of their ranking. In this paper, we propose a novel method based on the Bayesian approach that allows us to not only to build a methodically justified way of ranking features on small datasets, but also to methodically solve the problem of benchmarking the results obtained by various ranking algorithms. The proposed method is also model-free, since no restrictions are imposed on the model. We carry out an experimental comparison of our proposed method with the classical frequency method. For this, we use two synthetic datasets and two public medical datasets. As a result, we show that the proposed ranking method has a high level of self-consistency (stability) already at the level of 50 samples, which is greatly improved compared to classical logistic regression and SHAP ranking. All the experiments performed confirm our theoretical conclusions: with the growth of the sample, an increasing trend of mutual consistency is observed, and our method demonstrates at least comparable results, and often results superior to other methods in the values of self-consistency and monotonicity. The proposed method can be applied to a wide class of rankings of influence factors on small samples, including industrial tasks, forensics, psychology, etc.

Indexed as

Bayesian approachfeature rankingranking algorithm benchmarkingsmall samples

Identifiers

PMID40870245
PMCPMC12385874

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.