Superior feature-set ranking for small samples using bolstered error estimation

MOTIVATION Ranking feature sets is a key issue for classification, for instance, phenotype classification based on gene expression. Since ranking is often based on error estimation, and error estimators suffer to differing degrees of imprecision in small-sample settings, it is important to choose a computationally feasible error estimator that yields good feature-set ranking. RESULTS This paper examines the feature-ranking performance of several kinds of error estimators: resubstitution, cross-validation, bootstrap and bolstered error estimation. It does so for three classification rules: linear discriminant analysis, three-nearest-neighbor classification and classification trees. Two measures of performance are considered. One counts the number of the truly best feature sets appearing among the best feature sets discovered by the error estimator and the other computes the mean absolute error between the top ranks of the truly best feature sets and their ranks as given by the error estimator. Our results indicate that bolstering is superior to bootstrap, and bootstrap is better than cross-validation, for discovering top-performing feature sets for classification when using small samples. A key issue is that bolstered error estimation is tens of times faster than bootstrap, and faster than cross-validation, and is therefore feasible for feature-set ranking when the number of feature sets is extremely large.

[1]  Edward R. Dougherty,et al.  Is cross-validation better than resubstitution for ranking genes? , 2004, Bioinform..

[2]  László Györfi,et al.  A Probabilistic Theory of Pattern Recognition , 1996, Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability.

[3]  Geoffrey J McLachlan,et al.  Selection bias in gene extraction on the basis of microarray gene-expression data , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Feature Selection: Evaluation, Application, and Small Sample Performance , 1997, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[5]  Christian Vandendorpe,et al.  Régimes du visuel et transformations de l'allégorie , 2006 .

[6]  Ulisses Braga-Neto,et al.  Bolstered error estimation , 2004, Pattern Recognit..

[7]  Jan M. Van Campenhout,et al.  On the Possible Orderings in the Measurement Selection Problem , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[8]  Michael L. Bittner,et al.  Ratio statistics of gene expression levels and applications to microarray data analysis , 2002, Bioinform..

[9]  E. Dougherty,et al.  Identification of combination gene sets for glioma classification. , 2002, Molecular cancer therapeutics.

[10]  Mineichi Kudo,et al.  Comparison of algorithms that select features for pattern classifiers , 2000, Pattern Recognit..

[11]  Wei-Min Liu,et al.  Analysis of high density expression microarrays with signed-rank call algorithms , 2002, Bioinform..

[12]  Yudong D. He,et al.  A Gene-Expression Signature as a Predictor of Survival in Breast Cancer , 2002 .

[13]  B. Efron Estimating the Error Rate of a Prediction Rule: Improvement on Cross-Validation , 1983 .

[14]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Small Sample Size Effects in Statistical Pattern Recognition: Recommendations for Practitioners , 1991, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[15]  K JainAnil,et al.  Small Sample Size Effects in Statistical Pattern Recognition , 1991 .

[16]  Edward R. Dougherty,et al.  Small Sample Issues for Microarray-Based Classification , 2001, Comparative and functional genomics.

[17]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  39 Dimensionality and sample size considerations in pattern recognition practice , 1982, Classification, Pattern Recognition and Reduction of Dimensionality.

[18]  Yudong D. He,et al.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer , 2002, Nature.

[19]  Edward R. Dougherty,et al.  Is cross-validation valid for small-sample microarray classification? , 2004, Bioinform..

[20]  Van,et al.  A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.