Results 1  10
of
423
Comparison of discrimination methods for the classification of tumors using gene expression data
 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION
, 2002
"... A reliable and precise classification of tumors is essential for successful diagnosis and treatment of cancer. cDNA microarrays and highdensity oligonucleotide chips are novel biotechnologies increasingly used in cancer research. By allowing the monitoring of expression levels in cells for thousand ..."
Abstract

Cited by 770 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A reliable and precise classification of tumors is essential for successful diagnosis and treatment of cancer. cDNA microarrays and highdensity oligonucleotide chips are novel biotechnologies increasingly used in cancer research. By allowing the monitoring of expression levels in cells for thousands of genes simultaneously, microarray experiments may lead to a more complete understanding of the molecular variations among tumors and hence to a finer and more informative classification. The ability to successfully distinguish between tumor classes (already known or yet to be discovered) using gene expression data is an important aspect of this novel approach to cancer classification. This article compares the performance of different discrimination methods for the classification of tumors based on gene expression data. The methods include nearestneighbor classifiers, linear discriminant analysis, and classification trees. Recent machine learning approaches, such as bagging and boosting, are also considered. The discrimination methods are applied to datasets from three recently published cancer gene expression studies.
BagBoosting for tumor classification with gene expression data
 Bioinformatics
, 2004
"... Motivation: Microarray experiments are expected to contribute significantly to the progress in cancer treatment by enabling a precise and early diagnosis. They create a need for class prediction tools, which can deal with a large number of highly correlated input variables, perform feature selection ..."
Abstract

Cited by 194 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Motivation: Microarray experiments are expected to contribute significantly to the progress in cancer treatment by enabling a precise and early diagnosis. They create a need for class prediction tools, which can deal with a large number of highly correlated input variables, perform feature selection and provide class probability estimates that serve as a quantification of the predictive uncertainty. A very promising solution is to combine the two ensemble schemes bagging and boosting to a novel algorithm called BagBoosting.
Results: When bagging is used as a module in boosting, the resulting classifier consistently improves the predictive performance and the probability estimates of both bagging and boosting on real and simulated gene expression data. This quasiguaranteed improvement can be obtained by simply making a bigger computing effort. The advantageous predictive potential is also confirmed by comparing BagBoosting to several established class prediction tools for microarray data.
Mining DistanceBased Outliers in Near Linear Time with Randomization and a Simple Pruning Rule
, 2003
"... Defining outliers by their distance to neighboring examples is a popular approach to finding unusual examples in a data set. Recently, much work has been conducted with the goal of finding fast algorithms for this task. We show that a simple nested loop algorithm that in the worst case is quadratic ..."
Abstract

Cited by 159 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Defining outliers by their distance to neighboring examples is a popular approach to finding unusual examples in a data set. Recently, much work has been conducted with the goal of finding fast algorithms for this task. We show that a simple nested loop algorithm that in the worst case is quadratic can give near linear time performance when the data is in random order and a simple pruning rule is used. We test our algorithm on real highdimensional data sets with millions of examples and show that the near linear scaling holds over several orders of magnitude. Our average case analysis suggests that much of the e#ciency is because the time to process nonoutliers, which are the majority of examples, does not depend on the size of the data set.
Flexible Metric Nearest Neighbor Classification
, 1994
"... The Knearestneighbor decision rule assigns an object of unknown class to the plurality class among the K labeled "training" objects that are closest to it. Closeness is usually defined in terms of a metric distance on the Euclidean space with the input measurement variables as axes. The ..."
Abstract

Cited by 133 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The Knearestneighbor decision rule assigns an object of unknown class to the plurality class among the K labeled "training" objects that are closest to it. Closeness is usually defined in terms of a metric distance on the Euclidean space with the input measurement variables as axes. The metric chosen to define this distance can strongly effect performance. An optimal choice depends on the problem at hand as characterized by the respective class distributions on the input measurement space, and within a given problem, on the location of the unknown object in that space. In this paper new types of Knearestneighbor procedures are described that estimate the local relevance of each input variable, or their linear combinations, for each individual point to be classified. This information is then used to separately customize the metric used to define distance from that object in finding its nearest neighbors. These procedures are a hybrid between regular Knearestneighbor methods and treestructured recursive partitioning techniques popular in statistics and machine learning.
Top 10 algorithms in data mining
, 2007
"... Abstract This paper presents the top 10 data mining algorithms identified by the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) in December 2006: C4.5, kMeans, SVM, Apriori, EM, PageRank, AdaBoost, kNN, Naive Bayes, and CART. These top 10 algorithms are among the most influential data mining a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 126 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract This paper presents the top 10 data mining algorithms identified by the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) in December 2006: C4.5, kMeans, SVM, Apriori, EM, PageRank, AdaBoost, kNN, Naive Bayes, and CART. These top 10 algorithms are among the most influential data mining algorithms in the research community. With each algorithm, we provide a description of the algorithm, discuss the impact of the algorithm, and review current and further research on the algorithm. These 10 algorithms cover classification,
Relational InstanceBased Learning
 Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Machine Learning
, 1996
"... A relational instancebased learning algorithm, called Ribl, is motivated and developed in this paper. We argue that instancebased methods o#er solutions to the often unsatisfactory behavior of current inductive logic programming #ILP# approaches in domains with continuous attribute values a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 79 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A relational instancebased learning algorithm, called Ribl, is motivated and developed in this paper. We argue that instancebased methods o#er solutions to the often unsatisfactory behavior of current inductive logic programming #ILP# approaches in domains with continuous attribute values and in domains with noisy attributes and#or examples. Three research issues that emerge when a propositional instancebased learner is adapted to a #rstorder representation are identi#ed: #1# construction of cases from the knowledge base, #2# computation of similaritybetween arbitrarily complex cases, and #3# estimation of the relevance of predicates and attributes. Solutions to these issues are developed. Empirical results indicate that Ribl is able to achieve high classi#cation accuracy in a variety of domains. to appear in: Proc. 13th International Conference on Machine Learning, L. Saitta #ed.#, Morgan Kaufmann, 1996 1 Introduction The #eld of Inductive Logic Programming ...
DistributionFree Performance Bounds for Potential Function Rules
, 1979
"... In the discrimination problem the random variable 0, known to take values in {l;..,M), is estimated from the random vector X. All that is known about the joint distribution of (X,0) is that which can be inferred from a sample (X1,0,),...,(X,,Q of size n drawn from that distribution. A discriminatio ..."
Abstract

Cited by 72 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In the discrimination problem the random variable 0, known to take values in {l;..,M), is estimated from the random vector X. All that is known about the joint distribution of (X,0) is that which can be inferred from a sample (X1,0,),...,(X,,Q of size n drawn from that distribution. A discrimination rule is any procedure which determines a decision 0 for 0 from X and (X,,e,);.,(X,,e,). For rules which are determined by potential functions it is shown that the meansquare difference between the probability of error for the rule and its deleted estimate is bounded by A /fl n where A is an explicitly given constant depending only on M and the potential function. The O(n‘12) behavior is shown to be the best possible for one of the most commonly encountered rules of this type.
The Racing Algorithm: Model Selection for Lazy Learners
 Artificial Intelligence Review
, 1997
"... Given a set of models and some training data, we would like to find the model that best describes the data. Finding the model with the lowest generalization error is a computationally expensive process, especially if the number of testing points is high or if the number of models is large. Optimizat ..."
Abstract

Cited by 68 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Given a set of models and some training data, we would like to find the model that best describes the data. Finding the model with the lowest generalization error is a computationally expensive process, especially if the number of testing points is high or if the number of models is large. Optimization techniques such as hill climbing or genetic algorithms are helpful but can end up with a model that is arbitrarily worse than the best one or cannot be used because there is no distance metric on the space of discrete models. In this paper we develop a technique called "racing" that tests the set of models in parallel, quickly discards those models that are clearly inferior and concentrates the computational effort on differentiating among the better models. Racing is especially suitable for selecting among lazy learners since training requires negligible expense, and incremental testing using leaveoneout cross validation is efficient. We use racing to select among various lazy learnin...
Combining Nearest Neighbor Classifiers Through Multiple Feature Subsets
"... Combining multiple classifiers is an effective technique for improving accuracy. There are many general combining algorithms, such as Bagging or Error Correcting Output Coding, that significantly improve classifiers like decision trees, rule learners, or neural networks. Unfortunately, many combinin ..."
Abstract

Cited by 61 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Combining multiple classifiers is an effective technique for improving accuracy. There are many general combining algorithms, such as Bagging or Error Correcting Output Coding, that significantly improve classifiers like decision trees, rule learners, or neural networks. Unfortunately, many combining methods do not improve the nearest neighbor classifier. In this paper, we present MFS, a combining algorithm designed to improve the accuracy of the nearest neighbor (NN) classifier. MFS combines multiple NN classifiers each using only a random subset of features. The experimental results are encouraging: On 25 datasets from the UCI Repository, MFS significantly improved upon the NN, k nearest neighbor (kNN), and NN classifiers with forward and backward selection of features. MFS was also robust to corruption by irrelevant features compared to the kNN classifier. Finally, we show that MFS is able to reduce both bias and variance components of error.
Feature Weighting for Lazy Learning Algorithms
, 1998
"... : Learning algorithms differ in the degree to which they process their inputs prior to their use in performance tasks. Many algorithms eagerly compile input samples and use only the compilations to make decisions. Others are lazy: they perform less precompilation and use the input samples to guide ..."
Abstract

Cited by 53 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
: Learning algorithms differ in the degree to which they process their inputs prior to their use in performance tasks. Many algorithms eagerly compile input samples and use only the compilations to make decisions. Others are lazy: they perform less precompilation and use the input samples to guide decision making. The performance of many lazy learners significantly degrades when samples are defined by features containing little or misleading information. Distinguishing feature relevance is a critical issue for these algorithms, and many solutions have been developed that assign weights to features. This chapter introduces a categorization framework for feature weighting approaches used in lazy similarity learners and briefly surveys some examples in each category. 1.1 INTRODUCTION Lazy learning algorithms are machine learning algorithms (Mitchell, 1997) that are welcome members of procrastinators anonymous. Purely lazy learners typically display the following characteristics (Aha, 19...