↓ Skip to main content

Improving feature selection performance using pairwise pre-evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improving feature selection performance using pairwise pre-evaluation
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1178-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Songlu Li, Sejong Oh

Abstract

Biological data such as microarrays contain a huge number of features. Thus, it is necessary to select a small number of novel features to characterize the entire dataset. All combinations of the features subset must be evaluated to produce an ideal feature subset, but this is impossible using currently available computing power. Feature selection or feature subset selection provides a sub-optimal solution within a reasonable amount of time. In this study, we propose an improved feature selection method that uses information based on all the pairwise evaluations for a given dataset. We modify the original feature selection algorithms to use pre-evaluation information. The pre-evaluation captures the quality and interactions between two features. The feature subset should be improved by using the top ranking pairs for two features in the selection process. Experimental results demonstrated that the proposed method improved the quality of the feature subset produced by modified feature selection algorithms. The proposed method can be applied to microarray and other high-dimensional data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 24%
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 11 38%
Engineering 5 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 4 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,986,767
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,487
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,302
of 343,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#60
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.