Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 445

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Classification with correlated features: unreliability of feature ranking and solutions

Open access
Toloşi, Laura, Lengauer, Thomas·2011·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Motivation: Classification and feature selection of genomics or transcriptomics data is often hampered by the large number of features as compared with the small number of samples available. Moreover, features represented by probes that either have similar molecular functions (gene expression analysis) or genomic locations (DNA copy number analysis) are highly correlated. Classical model selection methods such as penalized logistic regression or random forest become unstable in the presence of high feature correlations. Sophisticated penalties such as group Lasso or fused Lasso can force the models to assign similar weights to correlated features and thus improve model stability and interpretability. In this article, we show that the measures of feature relevance corresponding to the above-mentioned methods are biased such that the weights of the features belonging to groups of correlated features decrease as the sizes of the groups increase, which leads to incorrect model interpretation and misleading feature ranking. Results: With simulation experiments, we demonstrate that Lasso logistic regression, fused support vector machine, group Lasso and random forest models suffer from correlation bias. Using simulations, we show that two related methods for group selection based on feature clustering can be used for correcting the correlation bias. These techniques also improve the stability and the accuracy of the baseline models. We apply all methods investigated to a breast cancer and a bladder cancer arrayCGH dataset and in order to identify copy number aberrations predictive of tumor phenotype. Availability: R code can be found at: http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/~laura/Clustering.r. Contact: laura.tolosi@mpi-inf.mpg.de Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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/btr300

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 445

Metadata

Authors
Toloşi, L., & Lengauer, T.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2011-05-16
Volume
27
Issue
14
Pages
1986-1994
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2156332695
Cited by
445
References
4
FWCI
2.94
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: Classification with correlated features: unreliability of feature ranking and solutions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr300
The paper
Toloşi, L., & Lengauer, T. (2011). Classification with correlated features: unreliability of feature ranking and solutions. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr300

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.