Cited by 287Machine Learning in BioinformaticsMachine Learning and Data ClassificationGene expression and cancer classification

Data-driven advice for applying machine learning to bioinformatics problems

Open access
Olson, Randal S., Cava, William La, Mustahsan, Zairah, Varik, Akshay, Moore, Jason H.·2018·Biocomputing 2018

Abstract

As the bioinformatics field grows, it must keep pace not only with new data but with new algorithms. Here we contribute a thorough analysis of 13 state-of-the-art, commonly used machine learning algorithms on a set of 165 publicly available classification problems in order to provide data-driven algorithm recommendations to current researchers. We present a number of statistical and visual comparisons of algorithm performance and quantify the effect of model selection and algorithm tuning for each algorithm and dataset. The analysis culminates in the recommendation of five algorithms with hyperparameters that maximize classifier performance across the tested problems, as well as general guidelines for applying machine learning to supervised classification problems.

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 · 10.1142/9789813235533_0018

Cites

11 of 11 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: 10

  1. [4]King RD Feng C Sutherland A Applied Artificial Intelligence an International Journal 9 289 1995
  2. [7]Fernández-Delgado M Cernadas E Barro S Amorim D Journal of Machine Learning Research 15 3133 2014
  3. [8]Pedregosa F Varoquaux G Gramfort A Michel V Thirion B Grisel O Blondel M Prettenhofer P Weiss R Dubourg V Vanderplas J Passos A Cournapeau D Brucher M Perrot M Duchesnay E Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 2825 2011
  4. [10]Vanschoren J Van Rijn JN Bischl B Torgo L ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 15 49 2014
  5. [11]Hastie TJ Tibshirani RJ Friedman JH The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction Springer New York, NY, USA 2009
  6. [14]Demšar J Journal of Machine Learning Research 7 1 2006
  7. [15]Wolpert DH Macready WG IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 1 67 1997
  8. [17]Feurer M Klein A Eggensperger K Springenberg J Blum M Hutter F Efficient and robust automated machine learning Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28 Cortes C Lawrence ND Lee DD Sugiyama M Garnett R Curran Associates, Inc 2015 2962 2970
  9. [18]Olson RS Sipper M La Cava W Tartarone S Vitale S Fu JH Holmes Weixuan Moore JH A system for accessible artificial intelligence arXiv e-print https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.00594 2017 · arXiv
  10. [20]La Cava W Moore JH Ensemble representation learning: an analysis of fitness and survival for wrapper-based genetic programming methods Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2017 2017

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Olson, R. S., Cava, W. L., Mustahsan, Z., Varik, A., & Moore, J. H.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Biocomputing 2018
Published
2017-11-17
Volume
23
Pages
192-203
OpenAlex
W2749093116
Cited by
287
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 24
FWCI
104.80
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing (PSB) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • University of Pennsylvania (ES013508)
  • University of the Pacific
  • University of Pennsylvania Health System
  • National Institutes of Health (1uc4dk112217-01, DK112217, ES013508)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI116794)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (UC4-DK-112217, U01DK112217)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (P30ES013508)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM012601)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
machine learning algorithm comparison, bioinformatics classification, algorithmic recommendation, hyperparameter optimization, model selection, supervised classification, classification performance, data-driven recommendation
MeSH terms
Supervised Machine Learning, Algorithms, Humans, Linear Models, Databases, Factual, Nonlinear Dynamics, Computational Biology

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