The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Optimally splitting cases for training and testing high dimensional classifiers
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: We consider the problem of designing a study to develop a predictive classifier from high dimensional data. A common study design is to split the sample into a training set and an independent test set, where the former is used to develop the classifier and the latter to evaluate its performance. In this paper we address the question of what proportion of the samples should be devoted to the training set. How does this proportion impact the mean squared error (MSE) of the prediction accuracy estimate? RESULTS: We develop a non-parametric algorithm for determining an optimal splitting proportion that can be applied with a specific dataset and classifier algorithm. We also perform a broad simulation study for the purpose of better understanding the factors that determine the best split proportions and to evaluate commonly used splitting strategies (1/2 training or 2/3 training) under a wide variety of conditions. These methods are based on a decomposition of the MSE into three intuitive component parts. CONCLUSIONS: By applying these approaches to a number of synthetic and real microarray datasets we show that for linear classifiers the optimal proportion depends on the overall number of samples available and the degree of differential expression between the classes. The optimal proportion was found to depend on the full dataset size (n) and classification accuracy - with higher accuracy and smaller n resulting in more assigned to the training set. The commonly used strategy of allocating 2/3rd of cases for training was close to optimal for reasonable sized datasets (n ≥ 100) with strong signals (i.e. 85% or greater full dataset accuracy). In general, we recommend use of our nonparametric resampling approach for determining the optimal split. This approach can be applied to any dataset, using any predictor development method, to determine the best split.
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
Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer
van 't Veer, L. J., Dai, H., van de Vijver, M. J., He, Y. D., Hart, A. A. M., Mao, M., Peterse, H. L., van der Kooy, K., Marton, M. J., Witteveen, A. T., et al. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415530a · Cited by 9,536
A Probabilistic Theory of Pattern Recognition
Devroye, L., Györfi, L., & Lugosi, G. (1996) · Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0711-5 · Cited by 3,274
A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance matrices
Ledoit, O., & Wolf, M. (2004) · Journal of Multivariate Analysis · doi:10.1016/s0047-259x(03)00096-4 · Cited by 3,046
Cited by
Analysis of Gut Microbiota in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease
Petrov, V. A., Saltykova, I. V., Zhukova, I. A., Alifirova, V. M., Zhukova, N. G., Dorofeeva, Y. B., Tyakht, A. V., Kovarsky, B. A., Alekseev, D. G., Kostryukova, E. S., et al. (2017) · Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10517-017-3700-7 · Cited by 487
Chowdhury, S., Joel-Edgar, S., Dey, P. K., Bhattacharya, S., & Kharlamov, A. (2023) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585192.2022.2066981 · Cited by 140
Byun, S., Jeong, H., Hyeon, S., & Lee, K.-S. (2021) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111186 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Dobbin, K. K., & Simon, R. M.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Genomics
- Published
- 2011-04-08
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-31
- ISSN
- 1755-8794 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2045257928
- Cited by
- 392
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 2.23
- 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: Optimally splitting cases for training and testing high dimensional classifiers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1755-8794-4-31
- The paper
- Dobbin, K. K., & Simon, R. M. (2011). Optimally splitting cases for training and testing high dimensional classifiers. BMC Medical Genomics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1755-8794-4-31
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.