The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A balanced accuracy function for epistasis modeling in imbalanced datasets using multifactor dimensionality reduction
Abstract
Multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) was developed as a method for detecting statistical patterns of epistasis. The overall goal of MDR is to change the representation space of the data to make interactions easier to detect. It is well known that machine learning methods may not provide robust models when the class variable (e.g. case‐control status) is imbalanced and accuracy is used as the fitness measure. This is because most methods learn patterns that are relevant for the larger of the two classes. The goal of this study was to evaluate three different strategies for improving the power of MDR to detect epistasis in imbalanced datasets. The methods evaluated were: (1) over‐sampling that resamples with replacement the smaller class until the data are balanced, (2) under‐sampling that randomly removes subjects from the larger class until the data are balanced, and (3) balanced accuracy [(sensitivity+specificity)/2] as the fitness function with and without an adjusted threshold. These three methods were compared using simulated data with two‐locus epistatic interactions of varying heritability (0.01, 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4) and minor allele frequency (0.2, 0.4) that were embedded in 100 replicate datasets of varying sample sizes (400, 800, 1600). Each dataset was generated with different ratios of cases to controls (1 : 1, 1 : 2, 1 : 4). We found that the balanced accuracy function with an adjusted threshold significantly outperformed both over‐sampling and under‐sampling and fully recovered the power. These results suggest that balanced accuracy should be used instead of accuracy for the MDR analysis of epistasis in imbalanced datasets. Genet. Epidemiol.. 2007. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
SMOTE synthetic minority over-sampling technique
Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, W. P. (2002) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.953 · Cited by 32,865
XV.—The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance.
Fisher, R. A. (1919) · Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh · doi:10.1017/s0080456800012163 · Cited by 4,387
CANALIZATION OF DEVELOPMENT AND THE INHERITANCE OF ACQUIRED CHARACTERS
WADDINGTON, C. H. (1942) · Nature · doi:10.1038/150563a0 · Cited by 3,255
Editorial: special issue on learning from imbalanced data sets
Chawla, N. V., Japkowicz, N., & Kotcz, A. (2004) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/1007730.1007733 · Cited by 2,063
Ritchie, M. D., Hahn, L. W., Roodi, N., Bailey, L. R., Dupont, W. D., Parl, F. F., & Moore, J. H. (2001) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1086/321276 · Cited by 1,898
Self-citationMetaCost: a general method for making classifiers cost-sensitive
Domingos, P. (1999) · Proceedings of the fifth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/312129.312220 · Cited by 1,303
Robust classification for imprecise environments
Provost, F., & Fawcett, T. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1007601015854 · Cited by 1,250
Hahn, L. W., Ritchie, M. D., & Moore, J. H. (2003) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btf869 · Cited by 1,133
Self-citationEpistasis: what it means, what it doesn't mean, and statistical methods to detect it in humans
Cordell, H. J. (2002) · Human Molecular Genetics · doi:10.1093/hmg/11.20.2463 · Cited by 1,084
A theory and methodology of inductive learning
Michalski, R. S. (1983) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(83)90016-4 · Cited by 1,002
Cited by
The Balanced Accuracy and Its Posterior Distribution
Brodersen, K. H., Ong, C. S., Stephan, K. E., & Buhmann, J. M. (2010) · 2010 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/icpr.2010.764 · Cited by 1,816
Detecting gene–gene interactions that underlie human diseases
Cordell, H. J. (2009) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2579 · Cited by 1,350
Chicco, D., Tötsch, N., & Jurman, G. (2021) · BioData Mining · doi:10.1186/s13040-021-00244-z · Cited by 893
BOOST: A Fast Approach to Detecting Gene-Gene Interactions in Genome-wide Case-Control Studies
Wan, X., Yang, C., Yang, Q., Xue, H., Fan, X., Tang, N. L. S., & Yu, W. (2010) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.07.021 · Cited by 503
PMLB: a large benchmark suite for machine learning evaluation and comparison
Olson, R. S., La Cava, W., Orzechowski, P., Urbanowicz, R. J., & Moore, J. H. (2017) · BioData Mining · doi:10.1186/s13040-017-0154-4 · Cited by 365
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Velez, D. R., White, B. C., Motsinger, A. A., Bush, W. S., Ritchie, M. D., Williams, S. M., & Moore, J. H.
- Venue
- Genetic Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-02-23
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 306-315
- ISSN
- 0741-0395 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2272
- OpenAlex
- W2084150578
- Cited by
- 384
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 11.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A balanced accuracy function for epistasis modeling in imbalanced datasets using multifactor dimensionality reduction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/gepi.20211
- The paper
- Velez, D. R., White, B. C., Motsinger, A. A., Bush, W. S., Ritchie, M. D., Williams, S. M., & Moore, J. H. (2007). A balanced accuracy function for epistasis modeling in imbalanced datasets using multifactor dimensionality reduction. Genetic Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1002/gepi.20211
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.