Cited by 99Statistical Methods and InferenceStatistical Methods and ApplicationsImbalanced Data Classification Techniques

Probability estimation with machine learning methods for dichotomous and multicategory outcome: Theory

Kruppa, Jochen, Liu, Yufeng, Biau, Gérard, Kohler, Michael, König, Inke R., Malley, James D., Ziegler, Andreas·2014·Biometrical Journal

Abstract

Probability estimation for binary and multicategory outcome using logistic and multinomial logistic regression has a long‐standing tradition in biostatistics. However, biases may occur if the model is misspecified. In contrast, outcome probabilities for individuals can be estimated consistently with machine learning approaches, including k ‐nearest neighbors ( k ‐NN), bagged nearest neighbors (b‐NN), random forests (RF), and support vector machines (SVM). Because machine learning methods are rarely used by applied biostatisticians, the primary goal of this paper is to explain the concept of probability estimation with these methods and to summarize recent theoretical findings. Probability estimation in k ‐NN, b‐NN, and RF can be embedded into the class of nonparametric regression learning machines; therefore, we start with the construction of nonparametric regression estimates and review results on consistency and rates of convergence. In SVMs, outcome probabilities for individuals are estimated consistently by repeatedly solving classification problems. For SVMs we review classification problem and then dichotomous probability estimation. Next we extend the algorithms for estimating probabilities using k ‐NN, b‐NN, and RF to multicategory outcomes and discuss approaches for the multicategory probability estimation problem using SVM. In simulation studies for dichotomous and multicategory dependent variables we demonstrate the general validity of the machine learning methods and compare it with logistic regression. However, each method fails in at least one simulation scenario. We conclude with a discussion of the failures and give recommendations for selecting and tuning the methods. Applications to real data and example code are provided in a companion article (doi: 10.1002/bimj.201300077 ).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bimj.201300068

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Using five different simulation settings and 8 different learning machines, each machine failed in at least one simulation scenario completely.

    “Indeed, we showed using five different simulation settings and 8 different learning machines for probability estimation that each machine failed in at least one simulation scenario completely.60”
  • There is no single best learning machine for probability estimation; learning machines may fail depending on the simulation model.

    “Previously, we demonstrated in a simulation study that there is no single best learning machine for probability estimation, 60 but that learning machines for probability estimation may fail depending on the simulation model.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kruppa, J., Liu, Y., Biau, G., Kohler, M., König, I. R., Malley, J. D., & Ziegler, A.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (DE)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Université Pierre et Marie Curie 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05 France
  • Fachbereich Mathematik TU Darmstadt Schlossgartenstr. 7 64289 Darmstadt Germany
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Ziegler, Andreas
Venue
Biometrical Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-01-29
Volume
56
Issue
4
Pages
534-563
ISSN
  • 0323-3847 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-4036
OpenAlex
W1945743190
Cited by
97
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biometrical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • German Region of the International Biometric Society
  • European Union (BiomarCare) (HEALTH-2011-278913)
  • German Ministry of Education and Research (CARDomics) (01KU0908A, 01KU0908B, 0315536F)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Keywords
probability estimation, machine learning, k-nearest neighbors, random forest, support vector machine, nonparametric regression, consistency, convergence rate, multinomial logistic regression, logistic regression, binary outcomes, model misspecification, classification
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Models, Theoretical, Probability, Regression Analysis, Statistics, Nonparametric, Support Vector Machine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review