The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Influence of Feature Selection Methods on Accuracy, Stability and Interpretability of Molecular Signatures
Open accessAbstract
Biomarker discovery from high-dimensional data is a crucial problem with enormous applications in biology and medicine. It is also extremely challenging from a statistical viewpoint, but surprisingly few studies have investigated the relative strengths and weaknesses of the plethora of existing feature selection methods. In this study we compare 32 feature selection methods on 4 public gene expression datasets for breast cancer prognosis, in terms of predictive performance, stability and functional interpretability of the signatures they produce. We observe that the feature selection method has a significant influence on the accuracy, stability and interpretability of signatures. Surprisingly, complex wrapper and embedded methods generally do not outperform simple univariate feature selection methods, and ensemble feature selection has generally no positive effect. Overall a simple Student's t-test seems to provide the best results.
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
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso
Tibshirani, R. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · Cited by 51,482
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
A new method to measure the semantic similarity of GO terms
Wang, J. Z., Du, Z., Payattakool, R., Yu, P. S., & Chen, C.-F. (2007) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm087 · Cited by 1,377
Cited by
A survey on feature selection methods
Chandrashekar, G., & Sahin, F. (2014) · Computers & Electrical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.compeleceng.2013.11.024 · Cited by 5,189
Correlation and variable importance in random forests
Gregorutti, B., Michel, B., & Saint-Pierre, P. (2017) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1007/s11222-016-9646-1 · Cited by 1,073
Machine Learning methods for Quantitative Radiomic Biomarkers
Parmar, C., Grossmann, P., Bussink, J., Lambin, P., & Aerts, H. J. W. L. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep13087 · Cited by 1,019
Deep learning in cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment selection
Tran, K. A., Kondrashova, O., Bradley, A., Williams, E. D., Pearson, J. V., & Waddell, N. (2021) · Genome Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13073-021-00968-x · Cited by 932
Stability of feature selection algorithm: A review
Khaire, U. M., & Dhanalakshmi, R. (2022) · Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2019.06.012 · Cited by 630
Metadata
- Authors
- Haury, A.-C., Gestraud, P., & Vert, J.-P.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2011-12-21
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e28210
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2146739527
- Cited by
- 392
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.99
- 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: The Influence of Feature Selection Methods on Accuracy, Stability and Interpretability of Molecular Signatures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0028210
- The paper
- Haury, A.-C., Gestraud, P., & Vert, J.-P. (2011). The Influence of Feature Selection Methods on Accuracy, Stability and Interpretability of Molecular Signatures. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028210
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.