[en] Motivation: Univariate statistical tests are widely used for biomarker discovery in bioinformatics. These procedures are simple, fast and their output is easily interpretable by biologists but they can only identify variables that provide a significant amount of information in isolation from the other variables. As biological processes are expected to involve complex interactions between variables, univariate methods thus potentially miss some informative biomarkers. Variable relevance scores provided by machine learning techniques, however, are potentially able to highlight multivariate interacting effects, but unlike the p-values returned by univariate tests, these relevance scores are usually not statistically interpretable. This lack of interpretability hampers the determination of a relevance threshold for extracting a feature subset from the rankings and also prevents the wide adoption of these methods by practicians.
Results: We evaluated several, existing and novel, procedures that extract relevant features from rankings derived from machine learning approaches. These procedures replace the relevance scores with measures that can be interpreted in a statistical way, such as p-values, false discovery rates, or family wise error rates, for which it is easier to determine a significance level. Experiments were performed on several artificial problems as well as on real microarray datasets. Although the methods differ in terms of computing times and the tradeoff, they achieve in terms of false positives and false negatives, some of them greatly help in the extraction of truly relevant biomarkers and should thus be of great practical interest for biologists and physicians. As a side conclusion, our experiments also clearly highlight that using model performance as a criterion for feature selection is often counter-productive.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.
Bibliography
Abeel, T. et al. (2010) Robust biomarker identification for cancer diagnosis with ensemble feature selection methods. Bioinformatics, 26, 392-398.
Alizadeh, A. et al. (2000) Distinct types of di?use large B-cell lymphoma identi{thorn}ed by gene expression pro{thorn}ling. Nature, 403, 503-511.
Altmann, A. et al. (2010) Permutation importance: a corrected feature importance measure. Bioinformatics, 26, 1340-1347.
Ambroise, C. and McLachlan, G.J. (2002) Selection bias in gene extraction on the basis of microarray gene-expression data. Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci., 99, 6562-6566.
Benjamini, Y. and Hochberg, Y. (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. Roy. Stat. Soci., Ser. B (Methodol.), 57, 289-300.
Boser, B.E. et al. (1992)Atraining algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. In Haussler, D. (ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACMWorkshop on Computational Learning Theory, Pittsburgh, ACM Press, pp. 144-152.
Breiman, L. (2001) Random forests. Mach. Learn., 45, 5-32.
Chang, C.-C. and Lin, C.-J. (2011) Libsvm: a library for support vector machines. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., 2, 27:1-27:27.
Dhanasekaran, S. et al. (2001) Delineation of prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer. Nature, 412, 822-826.
Fukunaga, K. and Hostetler, L. (1975) k-Nearest-neighbor Bayes-risk estimation. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 21, 285-293.
Ge, Y. et al. (2003) Resampling-based multiple testing for microarray data analysis. Technical Report 633, Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley.
Ge, Y. et al. (2008) Some step-down procedures controlling the false discovery rate under dependence. Stati. Sin., 18, 881-904.
Geurts, P. et al. (2005) Proteomic mass spectra classification using decision tree based ensemble methods. Bioinformatics, 21, 3138-3145.
Geurts, P. et al. (2006) Extremely randomized trees. Mach. Learn., 36, 3-42.
Golub, T.R. et al. (1999) Molecular classification of cancer: Class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science, 286, 531-537.
Guyon, I. et al. (2002) Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Mach. Learn., 46, 389-422.
Hastie, T. et al. (2003) The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer. New York.
He, Z. andYu, W. (2010) Stable feature selection for biomarker discovery. Computational Biology and Chemistry, 34, 215-225.
Huynh-Thu, V.A. et al. (2008) Exploiting tree-based variable importances to selectively identify relevant variables. JMLR:Workshop and Conference proceedings, Antwerp, 4, 60-73.
Pearl, J. (1988) Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
Rakotomamonjy, A. (2003) Variable selection using svm based criteria. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 3, 1357-1370.
Robnik-Sikonja, M. and Kononenko, I. (2003) Theoretical and empirical analysis of ReliefF and RReliefF. Mach. Learn. J., 53, 23-69.
Saeys, Y. et al. (2007) A review of feature selection techniques in bioinformatics. Bioinformatics, 23, 2507-2517.
Shipp, M. et al. (2002) Diffuse large b-cell lymphoma outcome prediction by geneexpression profiling and supervised machine learning. Nat. Med., 8, 68-74.
Singh, D. et al. (2002) Gene expression correlates of clinical prostate cancer behavior. Cancer Cell, 1, 203-209.
Smialowski, P. et al. (2010) Pitfalls of supervised feature selection. Bioinformatics, 26, 440-443.
Stoppiglia, H. et al. (2003) Ranking a random feature for variable and feature selection. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 3, 1399-1414.
Storey, J.D. and Tibshirani, R. (2003) Statistical significance for genomewide studies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 100, 9440-9445.
Tuv, E. et al. (2009) Feature selection with ensembles, artificial variables, and redundancy elimination. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 10, 1341-1366.
Wang, Y. et al. (2005) Gene-expression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymphnode-negative primary breast cancer. Lancet, 365, 671-679.
Westfall, P.H. andYoung, S.S. (1993) Resampling-Based Multiple Testing: Examples and Methods for p-Value Adjustment. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Zhang, C. et al. (2006) Significance of gene ranking for classification of microarray samples. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform., 3, 1-9.
Similar publications
Sorry the service is unavailable at the moment. Please try again later.
This website uses cookies to improve user experience. Read more
Save & Close
Accept all
Decline all
Show detailsHide details
Cookie declaration
About cookies
Strictly necessary
Performance
Strictly necessary cookies allow core website functionality such as user login and account management. The website cannot be used properly without strictly necessary cookies.
This cookie is used by Cookie-Script.com service to remember visitor cookie consent preferences. It is necessary for Cookie-Script.com cookie banner to work properly.
Performance cookies are used to see how visitors use the website, eg. analytics cookies. Those cookies cannot be used to directly identify a certain visitor.
Used to store the attribution information, the referrer initially used to visit the website
Cookies are small text files that are placed on your computer by websites that you visit. Websites use cookies to help users navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. Cookies that are required for the website to operate properly are allowed to be set without your permission. All other cookies need to be approved before they can be set in the browser.
You can change your consent to cookie usage at any time on our Privacy Policy page.