Feature Selection for Improving Case-Based Classifiers on High-Dimensional Data Sets.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case-based reasoning (CBR) is a suitable paradigm for class discovery in molecular biology, where the rules that define the domain knowledge are difficult to obtain, and there is not suf-ficient knowledge for formal knowledge representation. To extend the capabilities of this paradigm, we propose logistic regression for CBR (LR4CBR), a method that uses logistic regression as a feature selection (FS) method for CBR sys-tems. Our method not only improves the prediction accuracy of CBR classifiers in biomedical domains, but also selects a subset of features that have meaningful relationships with their class labels. In this paper, we introduce two methods to rank features for logistic regression. We show that using logistic regression as a filter FS method outperforms other FS techniques, such as Fisher and t-test, which have been widely used in analyzing biological data sets. The FS methods are combined with a computational framework for a CBR system called TA3. We also evaluate the method on two mass spectrometry data sets, and show that the prediction accuracy of TA3 improves from 90 % to 98 % and from 79.2 % to 95.4%. Finally, we compare our list of discovered biomarkers with the lists of selected biomarkers from other studies for the mass spectrometry data sets, and show the overlapping biomarkers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".