The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of random forest and its Gini importance with standard chemometric methods for the feature selection and classification of spectral data
Open accessAbstract
Background: Regularized regression methods such as principal component or partial least squares regression perform well in learning tasks on high dimensional spectral data, but cannot explicitly eliminate irrelevant features. The random forest classifier with its associated Gini feature importance, on the other hand, allows for an explicit feature elimination, but may not be optimally adapted to spectral data due to the topology of its constituent classification trees which are based on orthogonal splits in feature space. Results: We propose to combine the best of both approaches, and evaluated the joint use of a feature selection based on a recursive feature elimination using the Gini importance of random forests' together with regularized classification methods on spectral data sets from medical diagnostics, chemotaxonomy, biomedical analytics, food science, and synthetically modified spectral data. Here, a feature selection using the Gini feature importance with a regularized classification by discriminant partial least squares regression performed as well as or better than a filtering according to different univariate statistical tests, or using regression coefficients in a backward feature elimination. It outperformed the direct application of the random forest classifier, or the direct application of the regularized classifiers on the full set of features. Conclusion: The Gini importance of the random forest provided superior means for measuring feature relevance on spectral data, but – on an optimal subset of features – the regularized classifiers might be preferable over the random forest classifier, in spite of their limitation to model linear dependencies only. A feature selection based on Gini importance, however, may precede a regularized linear classification to identify this optimal subset of features, and to earn a double benefit of both dimensionality reduction and the elimination of noise from the classification task.
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
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Classification and Regression by randomForest
Liaw, A. I., & Wiener, M. C. (2007) · Cited by 18,594
Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution
Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Zeileis, A., & Hothorn, T. (2007) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-8-25 · Cited by 3,688
Random Forest: A Classification and Regression Tool for Compound Classification and QSAR Modeling
Svetnik, V., Liaw, A., Tong, C., Culberson, J. C., Sheridan, R. P., & Feuston, B. P. (2003) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci034160g · Cited by 3,573
(2000) · CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs · doi:10.1162/153244303322753616 · Cited by 3,502
Conditional variable importance for random forests
Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Kneib, T., Augustin, T., & Zeileis, A. (2008) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-307 · Cited by 3,254
Gene selection and classification of microarray data using random forest
Díaz-Uriarte, R., & Alvarez de Andrés, S. (2006) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-7-3 · Cited by 2,929
Comparison of Discrimination Methods for the Classification of Tumors Using Gene Expression Data
Dudoit, S., Fridlyand, J., & Speed, T. P. (2002) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/016214502753479248 · Cited by 2,672
A Statistical View of Some Chemometrics Regression Tools
Frank, L. E., & Friedman, J. H. (1993) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1993.10485033 · Cited by 2,213
The pls Package: Principal Component and Partial Least Squares Regression in R
Mevik, B.-H., & Wehrens, R. (2007) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v018.i02 · Cited by 1,782
Cited by
Relief-based feature selection: Introduction and review
Urbanowicz, R. J., Meeker, M., La Cava, W., Olson, R. S., & Moore, J. H. (2018) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2018.07.014 · Cited by 1,311
Analysis of machine learning techniques for heart failure readmissions
Mortazavi, B. J., Downing, N. S., Bucholz, E. M., Dharmarajan, K., Manhapra, A., Li, S.-X., Negahban, S. N., & Krumholz, H. M. (2016) · Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · doi:10.1161/circoutcomes.116.003039 · Cited by 401
El-Sappagh, S., Alonso, J. M., Islam, S. M. R., Sultan, A. M., & Kwak, K. S. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-82098-3 · Cited by 363
Mapping patterns of long-term settlement in Northern Mesopotamia at a large scale
Menze, B. H., & Ur, J. A. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1115472109 · Cited by 139
Self-citationEvaluating the impact of multivariate imputation by MICE in feature selection
Mera-Gaona, M., Neumann, U., Vargas-Canas, R., & López, D. M. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0254720 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Menze, B. H., Kelm, B. M., Masuch, R., Himmelreich, U., Bachert, P., Petrich, W., & Hamprecht, F. A.
- Venue
- BMC Bioinformatics
- Published
- 2009-07-10
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 213-213
- ISSN
- 1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2095649738
- Cited by
- 1,308
- References
- 41
- FWCI
- 9.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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 comparison of random forest and its Gini importance with standard chemometric methods for the feature selection and classification of spectral data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2105-10-213
- The paper
- Menze, B. H., Kelm, B. M., Masuch, R., Himmelreich, U., Bachert, P., Petrich, W., & Hamprecht, F. A. (2009). A comparison of random forest and its Gini importance with standard chemometric methods for the feature selection and classification of spectral data. BMC Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-213
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.