Cited by 1,561Statistical Methods and InferenceArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareMachine Learning and Data Classification

A comparison of random forest variable selection methods for classification prediction modeling

Open access
Speiser, Jaime Lynn, Miller, Michael E., Tooze, Janet, Ip, Edward·2019·Expert Systems with Applications

Abstract

Random forest classification is a popular machine learning method for developing prediction models in many research settings. Often in prediction modeling, a goal is to reduce the number of variables needed to obtain a prediction in order to reduce the burden of data collection and improve efficiency. Several variable selection methods exist for the setting of random forest classification; however, there is a paucity of literature to guide users as to which method may be preferable for different types of datasets. Using 311 classification datasets freely available online, we evaluate the prediction error rates, number of variables, computation times and area under the receiver operating curve for many random forest variable selection methods. We compare random forest variable selection methods for different types of datasets (datasets with binary outcomes, datasets with many predictors, and datasets with imbalanced outcomes) and for different types of methods (standard random forest versus conditional random forest methods and test based versus performance based methods). Based on our study, the best variable selection methods for most datasets are Jiang's method and the method implemented in the VSURF R package. For datasets with many predictors, the methods implemented in the R packages varSelRF and Boruta are preferable due to computational efficiency. A significant contribution of this study is the ability to assess different variable selection techniques in the setting of random forest classification in order to identify preferable methods based on applications in expert and intelligent systems.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.05.028

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Altmann A, Toloşi L, Sander O, & Lengauer T (2010). Permutation importance: a corrected feature importance measure. Bioinformatics, 26, 1340– 1347. 20385727
  2. Degenhardt F, Seifert S, & Szymczak S (2017). Evaluation of variable selection methods for random forests and omics data sets. Briefings in bioinformatics. PMC6433899 29045534
  3. Díaz-Uriarte R, & De Andres SA (2006). Gene selection and classification of microarray data using random forest. BMC bioinformatics, 7, 3. 16398926 PMC1363357
  4. Genuer R, Poggi J-M, & Tuleau-Malot C (2015). VSURF: an R package for variable selection using random forests. The R Journal, 7, 19– 33.
  5. Jiang H, Deng Y, Chen H-S, Tao L, Sha Q, Chen J, Tsai C-J, & Zhang S (2004). Joint analysis of two microarray gene-expression data sets to select lung adenocarcinoma marker genes. BMC bioinformatics, 5, 81. 15217521 PMC476733
  6. Kuhn M (2008). Caret package. Journal of statistical software, 28, 1– 26.27774042
  7. Sanchez-Pinto LN, Venable LR, Fahrenbach J, & Churpek MM (2018). Comparison of variable selection methods for clinical predictive modeling. International journal of medical informatics, 116, 10– 17. 29887230 PMC6003624
  8. Speiser JL, Durkalski VL, & Lee WM (2015). Random forest classification of etiologies for an orphan disease. Statistics in medicine, 34, 887– 899. 25366667 PMC4310784
  9. Svetnik V, Liaw A, Tong C, & Wang T (2004). Application of Breiman’s random forest to modeling structure-activity relationships of pharmaceutical molecules. In International Workshop on Multiple Classifier Systems (pp. 334– 343): Springer.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Speiser, J. L., Miller, M. E., Tooze, J., & Ip, E.
Affiliations
Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
Corresponding author
Speiser, Jaime Lynn
Venue
Expert Systems with Applications
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
134
Pages
93-101
ISSN
0957-4174 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2944954104
Cited by
1,561
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 185 · 2025: 380 · 2024: 373 · 2023: 321 · 2022: 166 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1
FWCI
58.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Expert Systems with Applications (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
random forest, feature selection, classification, Boruta, conditional random forest, high-dimensional predictors, prediction error, computational efficiency, expert systems

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