IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/ijbist/v8y2012i1n17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Evaluation of Classifiers in the Presence of Statistical Interactions between Features in High Dimensional Data Settings

Author

Listed:
  • Guo Yu

    (BG Medicine, Inc.)

  • Balasubramanian Raji

    (University of Massachusetts – Amherst)

Abstract

Background: A central challenge in high dimensional data settings in biomedical investigations involves the estimation of an optimal prediction algorithm to distinguish between different disease phenotypes. A significant complicating aspect in these analyses can be attributed to the presence of features that exhibit statistical interactions. Indeed, in several clinical investigations such as genetic studies of complex diseases, it is of interest to specifically identify such features. In this paper, we compare the performance of four commonly used classifiers (K-Nearest Neighbors, Prediction Analysis for Microarrays, Random Forests and Support Vector Machines) in settings involving high dimensional datasets including statistically interacting feature subsets. We evaluate the performance of these classifiers under conditions of varying sample size, levels of signal-to-noise ratio and strength of statistical interactions among features. We summarize two datasets from studies in diabetes and cardiovascular disease involving gene expression, metabolomics and proteomics measurements and compare results obtained using the four classifiers.Results: Simulation studies revealed that the classifier Prediction Analysis of Microarrays had the highest classification accuracy in the absence of noise, statistical interactions and when feature distributions were multivariate Gaussian within each class. In the presence of statistical interactions, modest effect sizes and the absence of noise, Support Vector Machines achieved the best performance followed closely by Random Forests. Random Forests was optimal in settings that included both significant levels of high dimensional noise features and statistical interactions between biomarker pairs. The data applications revealed similar trends in the relative performances of each classifier.Conclusion: Random Forests had the highest classification accuracy among the four classifiers and was successful in incorporating interaction effects between features in the presence of noise in high dimensional datasets.

Suggested Citation

  • Guo Yu & Balasubramanian Raji, 2012. "Comparative Evaluation of Classifiers in the Presence of Statistical Interactions between Features in High Dimensional Data Settings," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:8:y:2012:i:1:n:17
    DOI: 10.1515/1557-4679.1373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/1557-4679.1373
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/1557-4679.1373?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John D. Storey, 2002. "A direct approach to false discovery rates," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 64(3), pages 479-498, August.
    2. Constantin F Aliferis & Alexander Statnikov & Ioannis Tsamardinos & Jonathan S Schildcrout & Bryan E Shepherd & Frank E Harrell Jr., 2009. "Factors Influencing the Statistical Power of Complex Data Analysis Protocols for Molecular Signature Development from Microarray Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-7, March.
    3. Dudoit S. & Fridlyand J. & Speed T. P, 2002. "Comparison of Discrimination Methods for the Classification of Tumors Using Gene Expression Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 97, pages 77-87, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. M. Kathleen Kerr, 2003. "Design Considerations for Efficient and Effective Microarray Studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(4), pages 822-828, December.
    2. Won, Joong-Ho & Lim, Johan & Yu, Donghyeon & Kim, Byung Soo & Kim, Kyunga, 2014. "Monotone false discovery rate," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 86-93.
    3. Giuseppe Jurman & Samantha Riccadonna & Roberto Visintainer & Cesare Furlanello, 2012. "Algebraic Comparison of Partial Lists in Bioinformatics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Kubokawa, Tatsuya & Srivastava, Muni S., 2008. "Estimation of the precision matrix of a singular Wishart distribution and its application in high-dimensional data," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 99(9), pages 1906-1928, October.
    5. Wen Shi & Xi Chen & Jennifer Shang, 2019. "An Efficient Morris Method-Based Framework for Simulation Factor Screening," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 745-770, October.
    6. Hossain, Ahmed & Beyene, Joseph & Willan, Andrew R. & Hu, Pingzhao, 2009. "A flexible approximate likelihood ratio test for detecting differential expression in microarray data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(10), pages 3685-3695, August.
    7. Jianqing Fan & Xu Han, 2017. "Estimation of the false discovery proportion with unknown dependence," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 79(4), pages 1143-1164, September.
    8. Shigeyuki Matsui & Hisashi Noma, 2011. "Estimating Effect Sizes of Differentially Expressed Genes for Power and Sample-Size Assessments in Microarray Experiments," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 1225-1235, December.
    9. Lianming Wang & David B. Dunson, 2010. "Semiparametric Bayes Multiple Testing: Applications to Tumor Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 493-501, June.
    10. B. Moerkerke & E. Goetghebeur & J. De Riek & I. Roldán‐Ruiz, 2006. "Significance and impotence: towards a balanced view of the null and the alternative hypotheses in marker selection for plant breeding," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(1), pages 61-79, January.
    11. Zaili Fang & Inyoung Kim & Jeesun Jung, 2018. "Semiparametric Kernel-Based Regression for Evaluating Interaction Between Pathway Effect and Covariate," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 23(1), pages 129-152, March.
    12. Timothy B. Armstrong, 2014. "Adaptive Testing on a Regression Function at a Point," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1957R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Feb 2015.
    13. Nucera, Federico & Valente, Giorgio, 2013. "Carry trades and the performance of currency hedge funds," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 407-425.
    14. Bilin Zeng & Xuerong Meggie Wen & Lixing Zhu, 2017. "A link-free sparse group variable selection method for single-index model," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(13), pages 2388-2400, October.
    15. Iain Melvin & Jason Weston & William Stafford Noble & Christina Leslie, 2011. "Detecting Remote Evolutionary Relationships among Proteins by Large-Scale Semantic Embedding," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, January.
    16. Chen, Song Xi & Guo, Bin & Qiu, Yumou, 2023. "Testing and signal identification for two-sample high-dimensional covariances via multi-level thresholding," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 1337-1354.
    17. Márton Gosztonyi & Csákné Filep Judit, 2022. "Profiling (Non-)Nascent Entrepreneurs in Hungary Based on Machine Learning Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, March.
    18. Wang, Tao & Xu, Pei-Rong & Zhu, Li-Xing, 2012. "Non-convex penalized estimation in high-dimensional models with single-index structure," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 221-235.
    19. West, Kenneth D., 2006. "Forecast Evaluation," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 3, pages 99-134, Elsevier.
    20. Psaradellis, Ioannis & Laws, Jason & Pantelous, Athanasios A. & Sermpinis, Georgios, 2023. "Technical analysis, spread trading, and data snooping control," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 178-191.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:ijbist:v:8:y:2012:i:1:n:17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.