The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comprehensive comparison of random forests and support vector machines for microarray-based cancer classification
Open accessAbstract
Background: Cancer diagnosis and clinical outcome prediction are among the most important emerging applications of gene expression microarray technology with several molecular signatures on their way toward clinical deployment. Use of the most accurate classification algorithms available for microarray gene expression data is a critical ingredient in order to develop the best possible molecular signatures for patient care. As suggested by a large body of literature to date, support vector machines can be considered "best of class" algorithms for classification of such data. Recent work, however, suggests that random forest classifiers may outperform support vector machines in this domain. Results: In the present paper we identify methodological biases of prior work comparing random forests and support vector machines and conduct a new rigorous evaluation of the two algorithms that corrects these limitations. Our experiments use 22 diagnostic and prognostic datasets and show that support vector machines outperform random forests, often by a large margin. Our data also underlines the importance of sound research design in benchmarking and comparison of bioinformatics algorithms. Conclusion: We found that both on average and in the majority of microarray datasets, random forests are outperformed by support vector machines both in the settings when no gene selection is performed and when several popular gene selection methods are used.
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
Wu, Y. (1999) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1999.10485951 · Cited by 27,221
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 · Cited by 25,970
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Friedman, J., & Tibshirani, R. (2001) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-21606-5 · Cited by 24,162
Classification and Regression by randomForest
Liaw, A. I., & Wiener, M. C. (2007) · Cited by 18,594
Golub, T. R., Slonim, D. K., Tamayo, P., Huard, C., Gaasenbeek, M., Mesirov, J. P., Coller, H., Loh, M. L., Downing, J. R., Caligiuri, M. A., et al. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.531 · Cited by 11,516
Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines
Guyon, I., Weston, J., Barnhill, S., & Vapnik, V. (2002) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1012487302797 · Cited by 9,954
Ensemble methods in machine learning
Dietterich, T. G. (2000) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-45014-9_1 · Cited by 8,408
Journal of The American Statistical Association
Fienberg, S. E. (2005) · Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences · doi:10.1002/0471667196.ess1317 · Cited by 6,125
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
Cited by
SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning
Hengl, T., Mendes de Jesus, J., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Ruiperez Gonzalez, M., Kilibarda, M., Blagotić, A., Shangguan, W., Wright, M. N., Geng, X., Bauer-Marschallinger, B., et al. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169748 · Cited by 4,733
Menze, B. H., Kelm, B. M., Masuch, R., Himmelreich, U., Bachert, P., Petrich, W., & Hamprecht, F. A. (2009) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-10-213 · Cited by 1,308
Data mining for credit card fraud: a comparative study
Bhattacharyya, S., Jha, S., Tharakunnel, K., & Westland, J. C. (2011) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.08.008 · Cited by 1,108
Ahmad, M. W., Mourshed, M., & Rezgui, Y. (2017) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.038 · Cited by 1,013
Hengl, T., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Kempen, B., Leenaars, J. G. B., Walsh, M. G., Shepherd, K. D., Sila, A., MacMillan, R. A., Mendes de Jesus, J., Tamene, L., et al. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125814 · Cited by 935
Metadata
- Authors
- Statnikov, A., Wang, L., & Aliferis, C. F.
- Venue
- BMC Bioinformatics
- Published
- 2008-07-22
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 319-319
- ISSN
- 1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2131822674
- Cited by
- 686
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 10.42
- 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 comprehensive comparison of random forests and support vector machines for microarray-based cancer classification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2105-9-319
- The paper
- Statnikov, A., Wang, L., & Aliferis, C. F. (2008). A comprehensive comparison of random forests and support vector machines for microarray-based cancer classification. BMC Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-319
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.
