Cited by 319Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Does feature selection improve classification accuracy? Impact of sample size and feature selection on classification using anatomical magnetic resonance images

Chu, Carlton, Hsu, Ai-Ling, Chou, Kun-Hsien, Bandettini, Peter, Lin, ChingPo·2012·NeuroImage

Abstract

There are growing numbers of studies using machine learning approaches to characterize patterns of anatomical difference discernible from neuroimaging data. The high-dimensionality of image data often raises a concern that feature selection is needed to obtain optimal accuracy. Among previous studies, mostly using fixed sample sizes, some show greater predictive accuracies with feature selection, whereas others do not. In this study, we compared four common feature selection methods. 1) Pre-selected region of interests (ROIs) that are based on prior knowledge. 2) Univariate t-test filtering. 3) Recursive feature elimination (RFE), and 4) t-test filtering constrained by ROIs. The predictive accuracies achieved from different sample sizes, with and without feature selection, were compared statistically. To demonstrate the effect, we used grey matter segmented from the T1-weighted anatomical scans collected by the Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) as the input features to a linear support vector machine classifier. The objective was to characterize the patterns of difference between Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients and cognitively normal subjects, and also to characterize the difference between mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients and normal subjects. In addition, we also compared the classification accuracies between MCI patients who converted to AD and MCI patients who did not convert within the period of 12 months. Predictive accuracies from two data-driven feature selection methods (t-test filtering and RFE) were no better than those achieved using whole brain data. We showed that we could achieve the most accurate characterizations by using prior knowledge of where to expect neurodegeneration (hippocampus and parahippocampal gyrus). Therefore, feature selection does improve the classification accuracies, but it depends on the method adopted. In general, larger sample sizes yielded higher accuracies with less advantage obtained by using knowledge from the existing literature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.066

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The neural network method critically depends on relatively larger training and test datasets compared to image processing methods.

    “Hence, the neural network method critically depends on relatively larger training and test datasets compared to image processing methods [52-54].”
  • Neural networks require significant amounts of data to accurately perform a classification, especially with increasing number of classes.

    “However, they require significant amounts of data to accurately perform a classification, especially with increasing number of classes [52-54].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chu, C., Hsu, A.-L., Chou, K.-H., Bandettini, P., & Lin, C.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • National Yang Ming University (TW)
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-03
Volume
60
Issue
1
Pages
59-70
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2019583087
Cited by
319
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 9
FWCI
11.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • National Science Council (100-2627-B-010-004-, NSC 100-2628-E-010-002-MY3)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Health Research Institutes (NHRI-EX100-9813EC)
  • National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
feature selection, sample size, anatomical MRI, Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, grey matter, region of interest selection, recursive feature elimination, hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, neurodegeneration, linear support vector machine, classification accuracy, ADNI
MeSH terms
Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Reproducibility of Results, Sample Size, Neuroimaging, Cognitive Dysfunction

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