↓ Skip to main content

Compensation of feature selection biases accompanied with improved predictive performance for binary classification by using a novel ensemble feature selection approach

Overview of attention for article published in BioData Mining, November 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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Compensation of feature selection biases accompanied with improved predictive performance for binary classification by using a novel ensemble feature selection approach
Published in
BioData Mining, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13040-016-0114-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ursula Neumann, Mona Riemenschneider, Jan-Peter Sowa, Theodor Baars, Julia Kälsch, Ali Canbay, Dominik Heider

Abstract

Biomarker discovery methods are essential to identify a minimal subset of features (e.g., serum markers in predictive medicine) that are relevant to develop prediction models with high accuracy. By now, there exist diverse feature selection methods, which either are embedded, combined, or independent of predictive learning algorithms. Many preceding studies showed the defectiveness of single feature selection results, which cause difficulties for professionals in a variety of fields (e.g., medical practitioners) to analyze and interpret the obtained feature subsets. Whereas each of these methods is highly biased, an ensemble feature selection has the advantage to alleviate and compensate for such biases. Concerning the reliability, validity, and reproducibility of these methods, we examined eight different feature selection methods for binary classification datasets and developed an ensemble feature selection system. By using an ensemble of feature selection methods, a quantification of the importance of the features could be obtained. The prediction models that have been trained on the selected features showed improved prediction performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 13 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Engineering 4 9%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 10 23%
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 21 November 2016.
All research outputs
#13,795,558
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from BioData Mining
#195
of 308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,130
of 415,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioData Mining
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 415,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.