IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v12y2024i9p1398-d1388262.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Feature Selection Methods—Modelling COPD Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Jorge Cabral

    (Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications (CIDMA), Department of Mathematics, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

  • Pedro Macedo

    (Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications (CIDMA), Department of Mathematics, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

  • Alda Marques

    (Respiratory Research and Rehabilitation Laboratory (Lab3R), School of Health Sciences (ESSUA) and Institute of Biomedicine (iBiMED), University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

  • Vera Afreixo

    (Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications (CIDMA), Department of Mathematics, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

Abstract

Selecting features associated with patient-centered outcomes is of major relevance yet the importance given depends on the method. We aimed to compare stepwise selection, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, random forest, Boruta, extreme gradient boosting and generalized maximum entropy estimation and suggest an aggregated evaluation. We also aimed to describe outcomes in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Data from 42 patients were collected at baseline and at 5 months. Acute exacerbations were the aggregated most important feature in predicting the difference in the handgrip muscle strength (dHMS) and the COVID-19 lockdown group had an increased dHMS of 3.08 kg (CI95 ≈ [0.04, 6.11]). Pack-years achieved the highest importance in predicting the difference in the one-minute sit-to-stand test and no clinical change during lockdown was detected. Charlson comorbidity index was the most important feature in predicting the difference in the COPD assessment test (dCAT) and participants with severe values are expected to have a decreased dCAT of 6.51 points (CI95 ≈ [2.52, 10.50]). Feature selection methods yield inconsistent results, particularly extreme gradient boosting and random forest with the remaining. Models with features ordered by median importance had a meaningful clinical interpretation. Lockdown seem to have had a negative impact in the upper-limb muscle strength.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorge Cabral & Pedro Macedo & Alda Marques & Vera Afreixo, 2024. "Comparison of Feature Selection Methods—Modelling COPD Outcomes," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-23, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:9:p:1398-:d:1388262
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/9/1398/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/9/1398/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fan J. & Li R., 2001. "Variable Selection via Nonconcave Penalized Likelihood and its Oracle Properties," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 1348-1360, December.
    2. Kursa, Miron B. & Rudnicki, Witold R., 2010. "Feature Selection with the Boruta Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 36(i11).
    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. Sangjin Kim & Jong-Min Kim, 2019. "Two-Stage Classification with SIS Using a New Filter Ranking Method in High Throughput Data," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-16, May.
    2. Abhijeet R Patil & Sangjin Kim, 2020. "Combination of Ensembles of Regularized Regression Models with Resampling-Based Lasso Feature Selection in High Dimensional Data," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-23, January.
    3. Tutz, Gerhard & Pößnecker, Wolfgang & Uhlmann, Lorenz, 2015. "Variable selection in general multinomial logit models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 207-222.
    4. Guan, Wei & Gray, Alexander, 2013. "Sparse high-dimensional fractional-norm support vector machine via DC programming," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 136-148.
    5. Margherita Giuzio, 2017. "Genetic algorithm versus classical methods in sparse index tracking," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 40(1), pages 243-256, November.
    6. Chang, Jinyuan & Chen, Song Xi & Chen, Xiaohong, 2015. "High dimensional generalized empirical likelihood for moment restrictions with dependent data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 283-304.
    7. Xu, Yang & Zhao, Shishun & Hu, Tao & Sun, Jianguo, 2021. "Variable selection for generalized odds rate mixture cure models with interval-censored failure time data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    8. Alexandre Belloni & Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Christian Hansen & Kengo Kato, 2018. "High-dimensional econometrics and regularized GMM," CeMMAP working papers CWP35/18, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    9. Emmanouil Androulakis & Christos Koukouvinos & Kalliopi Mylona & Filia Vonta, 2010. "A real survival analysis application via variable selection methods for Cox's proportional hazards model," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(8), pages 1399-1406.
    10. Meng An & Haixiang Zhang, 2023. "High-Dimensional Mediation Analysis for Time-to-Event Outcomes with Additive Hazards Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Singh, Rakhi & Stufken, John, 2024. "Factor selection in screening experiments by aggregation over random models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    12. Hao Wang & Hao Zeng & Jiashan Wang, 2022. "An extrapolated iteratively reweighted $$\ell _1$$ ℓ 1 method with complexity analysis," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 967-997, December.
    13. Lili Pan & Ziyan Luo & Naihua Xiu, 2017. "Restricted Robinson Constraint Qualification and Optimality for Cardinality-Constrained Cone Programming," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 104-118, October.
    14. Michael Hintermüller & Tao Wu, 2014. "A superlinearly convergent R-regularized Newton scheme for variational models with concave sparsity-promoting priors," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 1-25, January.
    15. Anastasiou, Andreas & Cribben, Ivor & Fryzlewicz, Piotr, 2022. "Cross-covariance isolate detect: a new change-point method for estimating dynamic functional connectivity," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112148, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Ni, Xiao & Zhang, Hao Helen & Zhang, Daowen, 2009. "Automatic model selection for partially linear models," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 100(9), pages 2100-2111, October.
    17. Jun Yan & Jian Huang, 2012. "Model Selection for Cox Models with Time-Varying Coefficients," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(2), pages 419-428, June.
    18. Gerhard Tutz & Moritz Berger, 2018. "Tree-structured modelling of categorical predictors in generalized additive regression," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 12(3), pages 737-758, September.
    19. Min Tao & Jiang-Ning Li, 2023. "Error Bound and Isocost Imply Linear Convergence of DCA-Based Algorithms to D-Stationarity," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 205-232, April.
    20. Tong, Jianfeng & Liu, Zhenxing & Zhang, Yong & Zheng, Xiujuan & Jin, Junyang, 2023. "Improved multi-gate mixture-of-experts framework for multi-step prediction of gas load," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).

    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:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:9:p:1398-:d:1388262. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.