The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Feature selection and nearest centroid classification for protein mass spectrometry
Open accessAbstract
Background: The use of mass spectrometry as a proteomics tool is poised to revolutionize early disease diagnosis and biomarker identification. Unfortunately, before standard supervised classification algorithms can be employed, the "curse of dimensionality" needs to be solved. Due to the sheer amount of information contained within the mass spectra, most standard machine learning techniques cannot be directly applied. Instead, feature selection techniques are used to first reduce the dimensionality of the input space and thus enable the subsequent use of classification algorithms. This paper examines feature selection techniques for proteomic mass spectrometry. Results: This study examines the performance of the nearest centroid classifier coupled with the following feature selection algorithms. Student-t test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and the P-test are univariate statistics used for filter-based feature ranking. From the wrapper approaches we tested sequential forward selection and a modified version of sequential backward selection. Embedded approaches included shrunken nearest centroid and a novel version of boosting based feature selection we developed. In addition, we tested several dimensionality reduction approaches, namely principal component analysis and principal component analysis coupled with linear discriminant analysis. To fairly assess each algorithm, evaluation was done using stratified cross validation with an internal leave-one-out cross-validation loop for automated feature selection. Comprehensive experiments, conducted on five popular cancer data sets, revealed that the less advocated sequential forward selection and boosted feature selection algorithms produce the most consistent results across all data sets. In contrast, the state-of-the-art performance reported on isolated data sets for several of the studied algorithms, does not hold across all data sets. Conclusion: This study tested a number of popular feature selection methods using the nearest centroid classifier and found that several reportedly state-of-the-art algorithms in fact perform rather poorly when tested via stratified cross-validation. The revealed inconsistencies provide clear evidence that algorithm evaluation should be performed on several data sets using a consistent (i.e., non-randomized, stratified) cross-validation procedure in order for the conclusions to be statistically sound.
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
A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting
Freund, Y., & Schapire, R. E. (1997) · Journal of Computer and System Sciences · doi:10.1006/jcss.1997.1504 · Cited by 20,466
Use of proteomic patterns in serum to identify ovarian cancer
Petricoin, E. F., Ardekani, A. M., Hitt, B. A., Levine, P. J., Fusaro, V. A., Steinberg, S. M., Mills, G. B., Simone, C., Fishman, D. A., Kohn, E. C., et al. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07746-2 · Cited by 3,236
Cited by
A Review of Ensemble Methods in Bioinformatics
Yang, P., Hwa Yang, Y., B. Zhou, B., & Y. Zomaya, A. (2010) · Current Bioinformatics · doi:10.2174/157489310794072508 · Cited by 503
France, M. T., Ma, B., Gajer, P., Brown, S., Humphrys, M. S., Holm, J. B., Waetjen, L. E., Brotman, R. M., & Ravel, J. (2020) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-020-00934-6 · Cited by 441
Feature selection methods for big data bioinformatics: A survey from the search perspective
Wang, L., Wang, Y., & Chang, Q. (2016) · Methods · doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2016.08.014 · Cited by 331
Metadata
- Authors
- Levner, I.
- Venue
- BMC Bioinformatics
- Published
- 2005-03-23
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 68-68
- ISSN
- 1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1819658147
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.45
- 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: Feature selection and nearest centroid classification for protein mass spectrometry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2105-6-68
- The paper
- Levner, I. (2005). Feature selection and nearest centroid classification for protein mass spectrometry. BMC Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-6-68
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.