Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 648

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparative study of feature selection and multiclass classification methods for tissue classification based on gene expression

Open access
Li, Tao, Zhang, Chengliang, Ogihara, Mitsunori·2004·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Summary: This paper studies the problem of building multiclass classifiers for tissue classification based on gene expression. The recent development of microarray technologies has enabled biologists to quantify gene expression of tens of thousands of genes in a single experiment. Biologists have begun collecting gene expression for a large number of samples. One of the urgent issues in the use of microarray data is to develop methods for characterizing samples based on their gene expression. The most basic step in the research direction is binary sample classification, which has been studied extensively over the past few years. This paper investigates the next step—multiclass classification of samples based on gene expression. The characteristics of expression data (e.g. large number of genes with small sample size) makes the classification problem more challenging. The process of building multiclass classifiers is divided into two components: (i) selection of the features (i.e. genes) to be used for training and testing and (ii) selection of the classification method. This paper compares various feature selection methods as well as various state-of-the-art classification methods on various multiclass gene expression datasets. Our study indicates that multiclass classification problem is much more difficult than the binary one for the gene expression datasets. The difficulty lies in the fact that the data are of high dimensionality and that the sample size is small. The classification accuracy appears to degrade very rapidly as the number of classes increases. In particular, the accuracy was very low regardless of the choices of the methods for large-class datasets (e.g. NCI60 and GCM). While increasing the number of samples is a plausible solution to the problem of accuracy degradation, it is important to develop algorithms that are able to analyze effectively multiple-class expression data for these special datasets.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth267

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 648

Metadata

Authors
Li, T., Zhang, C., & Ogihara, M.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2004-04-15
Volume
20
Issue
15
Pages
2429-2437
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2116079122
Cited by
648
References
3
FWCI
11.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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 comparative study of feature selection and multiclass classification methods for tissue classification based on gene expression. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/bth267
The paper
Li, T., Zhang, C., & Ogihara, M. (2004). A comparative study of feature selection and multiclass classification methods for tissue classification based on gene expression. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bth267

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.