The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Selection bias in gene extraction on the basis of microarray gene-expression data
Open accessAbstract
In the context of cancer diagnosis and treatment, we consider the problem of constructing an accurate prediction rule on the basis of a relatively small number of tumor tissue samples of known type containing the expression data on very many (possibly thousands) genes. Recently, results have been presented in the literature suggesting that it is possible to construct a prediction rule from only a few genes such that it has a negligible prediction error rate. However, in these results the test error or the leave-one-out cross-validated error is calculated without allowance for the selection bias. There is no allowance because the rule is either tested on tissue samples that were used in the first instance to select the genes being used in the rule or because the cross-validation of the rule is not external to the selection process; that is, gene selection is not performed in training the rule at each stage of the cross-validation process. We describe how in practice the selection bias can be assessed and corrected for by either performing a cross-validation or applying the bootstrap external to the selection process. We recommend using 10-fold rather than leave-one-out cross-validation, and concerning the bootstrap, we suggest using the so-called .632+ bootstrap error estimate designed to handle overfitted prediction rules. Using two published data sets, we demonstrate that when correction is made for the selection bias, the cross-validated error is no longer zero for a subset of only a few genes.
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
Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns
Eisen, M. B., Spellman, P. T., Brown, P. O., & Botstein, D. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.25.14863 · Cited by 16,184
Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines
Guyon, I., Weston, J., Barnhill, S., & Vapnik, V. (2002) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1012487302797 · Cited by 9,954
Cited by
Building Predictive Models in R Using the caret Package
Kuhn, M. (2008) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v028.i05 · Cited by 8,863
Feature Selection with the Boruta Package
Kursa, M. B., & Rudnicki, W. R. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i11 · Cited by 5,659
Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0016973 · Cited by 2,583
Bias in error estimation when using cross-validation for model selection
Varma, S., & Simon, R. (2006) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-7-91 · Cited by 2,485
“[2], Ambroise and McLachlan [3] and Reunanen [4], this gives a very biased estimate of the true error; not much better than the resubstitution estimate.”
Background(2010) · doi:10.5555/1756006.1859921 · Cited by 1,924
Metadata
- Authors
- Ambroise, C., & McLachlan, G. J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2002-04-30
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 6562-6566
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2107956883
- Cited by
- 1,480
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Selection bias in gene extraction on the basis of microarray gene-expression data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.102102699
- The paper
- Ambroise, C., & McLachlan, G. J. (2002). Selection bias in gene extraction on the basis of microarray gene-expression data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.102102699
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.