PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Chao Sima

Publications and source records attributed to Chao Sima.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

What should be expected from feature selection in small-sample settings.

MOTIVATION: High-throughput technologies for rapid measurement of vast numbers of biological variables offer the potential for highly discriminatory diagnosis and prognosis; however, high dimensionality together with small samples creates the need for feature selection, while at the same time making feature-selection algorithms less reliable. Feature selection must typically be carried out from among thousands of gene-expression features and in the context of a small sample (small number of microarrays). Two basic questions arise: (1) Can one expect feature selection to yield a feature set whose error is close to that of an optimal feature set? (2) If a good feature set is not found, should it be expected that good feature sets do not exist? RESULTS: The two questions translate quantitatively into questions concerning conditional expectation. (1) Given the error of an optimal feature set, what is the conditionally expected error of the selected feature set? (2) Given the error of the selected feature set, what is the conditionally expected error of the optimal feature set? We address these questions using three classification rules (linear discriminant analysis, linear support vector machine and k-nearest-neighbor classification) and feature selection via sequential floating forward search and the t-test. We consider three feature-label models and patient data from a study concerning survival prognosis for breast cancer. With regard to the two focus questions, there is similarity across all experiments: (1) One cannot expect to find a feature set whose error is close to optimal, and (2) the inability to find a good feature set should not lead to the conclusion that good feature sets do not exist. In practice, the latter conclusion may be more immediately relevant, since when faced with the common occurrence that a feature set discovered from the data does not give satisfactory results, the experimenter can draw no conclusions regarding the existence or nonexistence of suitable feature sets. AVAILABILITY: http://ee.tamu.edu/~edward/feature_regression/

Artificial Intelligence↗

Superior feature-set ranking for small samples using bolstered error estimation.

MOTIVATION: Ranking feature sets is a key issue for classification, for instance, phenotype classification based on gene expression. Since ranking is often based on error estimation, and error estimators suffer to differing degrees of imprecision in small-sample settings, it is important to choose a computationally feasible error estimator that yields good feature-set ranking. RESULTS: This paper examines the feature-ranking performance of several kinds of error estimators: resubstitution, cross-validation, bootstrap and bolstered error estimation. It does so for three classification rules: linear discriminant analysis, three-nearest-neighbor classification and classification trees. Two measures of performance are considered. One counts the number of the truly best feature sets appearing among the best feature sets discovered by the error estimator and the other computes the mean absolute error between the top ranks of the truly best feature sets and their ranks as given by the error estimator. Our results indicate that bolstering is superior to bootstrap, and bootstrap is better than cross-validation, for discovering top-performing feature sets for classification when using small samples. A key issue is that bolstered error estimation is tens of times faster than bootstrap, and faster than cross-validation, and is therefore feasible for feature-set ranking when the number of feature sets is extremely large.

Algorithms↗