MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403380110 · doi:10.6000/1929-6029.2024.13.21

Performance of the Classical Model in Feature Selection Across Varying Database Sizes of Healthcare Data

2024· article· en· W4403380110 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kannan Thiruvengadam, Dadakhalandar Doddamani, Krishnan Rajendran

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature selectionFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)DatabaseHealth careData miningArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning is increasingly being applied to medical research, particularly in selecting predictive modelling variables. By identifying relevant variables, researchers can improve model accuracy and reliability, leading to better clinical decisions and reduced overfitting. Efficient utilization of resources and the validity of medical research findings depend on selecting the right variables. However, few studies compare the performance of classical and modern methods for selecting characteristics in health datasets, highlighting the need for a critical evaluation to choose the most suitable approach. We analysed the performance of six different variable selection methods, which includes stepwise, forward and backward selection using p-value and AIC, LASSO, and Elastic Net. Health-related surveillance data on behaviors, health status, and medical service usage were used across ten databases, with sizes ranging from 10% to 100%, maintaining consistent outcome proportions. Varying database sizes were utilized to assess their impact on prediction models, as they can significantly influence accuracy, overfitting, generalizability, statistical power, parameter estimation reliability, computational complexity, and variable selection. The stepwise and backward AIC model showed the highest accuracy with an Area under the ROC Curve (AUC) of 0.889. Despite its sparsity, the Lasso and Elastic Net model also performed well. The study also found that binary variables were considered more crucial by the Lasso and Elastic Net model. Importantly, the significance of variables remained consistent across different database sizes. The study shows that no major variations in results between the fitness metric of the model and the number of variables in stepwise and backward p-value models, irrespective of the database's size. LASSO and Elastic Net models surpassed other models throughout various database sizes, and with fewer variables.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.389 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical ResearchSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207