PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 401370

Discriminant analysis.

H E Solberg
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Discriminant analysis (DA) is a pattern recognition technique that has been widely applied in medical studies. It allows multivariate observations ("patterns" or points in multidimensional space) to be allocated to previously defined groups (diagnostic categories). The relationships between DA and other multivariate statistical techniques of interest in medical studies will be briefly discussed. The main emphasis is on linear discriminant functions (LDF). The theoretic assumptions underlying DA using LDFs will be presented, and the effect of violations to these assumptions will be reviewed in detail. Alternative methods will be presented when violations cause serious problems. It has been shown that the familiar LDF is fairly robust to departures from the assumptions. The application of the LDF in less than ideal situations therefore often does not cause much harm (if the violations are not too grotesque). Another set of problems reviewed is how to estimate the misallocation probabilities when using discriminant functions. The selection of the "best" subset of variables out of the complete set will be discussed. Practical guide lines are given based on the theoretic studies reviewed. When possible, available computer programs for various problems of DA will be indicated. The review does not aim at covering all medical studies where DA has been applied, since emphasis is on the practical conclusions of the theory of DA.

Explore related subjects

Discriminant AnalysisHumansJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H E Solberg. 1978. Discriminant analysis.. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408367809150920

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1992

Cross-validation performance of mortality prediction models.

Mortality prediction models hold substantial promise as tools for patient management, quality assessment, and, perhaps, health care resource allocation planning. Yet relatively little is known about the predictive validity of these models. We report here a comparison of the cross-validation performance of seven statistical models of patient mortality: (1) ordinary-least-squares (OLS) regression predicting 0/1 death status six months after admission; (2) logistic regression; (3) Cox regression; (4-6) three unit-weight models derived from the logistic regression, and (7) a recursive partitioning classification technique (CART). We calculated the following performance statistics for each model in both a learning and test sample of patients, all of whom were drawn from a nationally representative sample of 2558 Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction: overall accuracy in predicting six-month mortality, sensitivity and specificity rates, positive and negative predictive values, and per cent improvement in accuracy rates and error rates over model-free predictions (i.e., predictions that make no use of available independent variables). We developed ROC curves based on logistic regression, the best unit-weight model, the single best predictor variable, and a series of CART models generated by varying the misclassification cost specifications. In our sample, the models reduced model-free error rates at the patient level by 8-22 per cent in the test sample. We found that the performance of the logistic regression models was marginally superior to that of other models. The areas under the ROC curves for the best models ranged from 0.61 to 0.63. Overall predictive accuracy for the best models may be adequate to support activities such as quality assessment that involve aggregating over large groups of patients, but the extent to which these models may be appropriately applied to patient-level resource allocation planning is less clear.

Discriminant Analysis↗
PubMed1992

Self-administered patient questionnaire for assessing knowledge about joint arthroplasty prior to surgery.

This article assesses the discriminant validity of a questionnaire designed to test patients' knowledge about total joint arthroplasty prior to preoperative educational intervention. The method employed was to compare responses on the test by surgeons, health care workers, and patients and to evaluate whether the test could discriminate among groups. A total of 148 patients, 59 health care workers and 28 orthopedic surgeons completed the questionnaire. The results show that patients are knowledgeable about the benefits of surgery, but are in need of information about surgical risks and complications. The test was able to discriminate between surgeons and the other two groups, but there were few differences between health care workers and patients. Item analysis also demonstrates that the test is reliable. Although the test exhibits acceptable psychometric properties, a major problem in using this test in evaluating educational interventions is the relatively high average score and the potential ceiling effect that prevents measurement of further gains in knowledge. More work is needed on expanding the test to include more items where knowledge of total joint arthroplasty is limited.

Discriminant Analysis↗
PubMed1992

Frequency of HLA DQA1 alleles in an Italian population.

A sample of 103 Italians was tested for HLA-DQA1 polymorphism using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and dot blot hybridization. Results were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. The power of discrimination was 0.91 and the rate of exclusion 56.7. The frequencies of the DQA1*0201 and DQA1*0301 alleles were found to be significantly different from other Caucasian populations.

Discriminant Analysis↗