close
Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Sep 23:12:375.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-375.

Top scoring pairs for feature selection in machine learning and applications to cancer outcome prediction

Affiliations

Top scoring pairs for feature selection in machine learning and applications to cancer outcome prediction

Ping Shi et al. BMC Bioinformatics. .

Abstract

Background: The widely used k top scoring pair (k-TSP) algorithm is a simple yet powerful parameter-free classifier. It owes its success in many cancer microarray datasets to an effective feature selection algorithm that is based on relative expression ordering of gene pairs. However, its general robustness does not extend to some difficult datasets, such as those involving cancer outcome prediction, which may be due to the relatively simple voting scheme used by the classifier. We believe that the performance can be enhanced by separating its effective feature selection component and combining it with a powerful classifier such as the support vector machine (SVM). More generally the top scoring pairs generated by the k-TSP ranking algorithm can be used as a dimensionally reduced subspace for other machine learning classifiers.

Results: We developed an approach integrating the k-TSP ranking algorithm (TSP) with other machine learning methods, allowing combination of the computationally efficient, multivariate feature ranking of k-TSP with multivariate classifiers such as SVM. We evaluated this hybrid scheme (k-TSP+SVM) in a range of simulated datasets with known data structures. As compared with other feature selection methods, such as a univariate method similar to Fisher's discriminant criterion (Fisher), or a recursive feature elimination embedded in SVM (RFE), TSP is increasingly more effective than the other two methods as the informative genes become progressively more correlated, which is demonstrated both in terms of the classification performance and the ability to recover true informative genes. We also applied this hybrid scheme to four cancer prognosis datasets, in which k-TSP+SVM outperforms k-TSP classifier in all datasets, and achieves either comparable or superior performance to that using SVM alone. In concurrence with what is observed in simulation, TSP appears to be a better feature selector than Fisher and RFE in some of the cancer datasets

Conclusions: The k-TSP ranking algorithm can be used as a computationally efficient, multivariate filter method for feature selection in machine learning. SVM in combination with k-TSP ranking algorithm outperforms k-TSP and SVM alone in simulated datasets and in some cancer prognosis datasets. Simulation studies suggest that as a feature selector, it is better tuned to certain data characteristics, i.e. correlations among informative genes, which is potentially interesting as an alternative feature ranking method in pathway analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison of TSP, Fisher and RFE as feature selection methods for SVM as correlation varies among signal genes. A) shows the error rates of SVM (mean ± SE) on the test set of Data-I (the single block structure) at various gene selection levels, as within-block correlation (ρ) varies. B) shows the error rates of SVM on the test set of Data-II (the multi-block structure), as inter-block correlation (ρ') varies. The horizontal lines are the error rates of SVM using all features. The two vertical lines in A) show the number of pairs of genes in which recovery of signal genes are examined as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of TSP, Fisher and RFE as feature selection methods for KNN as correlation varies among signal genes. The error rates of KNN (mean ± SE) on the test set of Data-I, as within-block correlation (ρ) varies. The x-axis is the number of top ranked gene pairs for TSP, or half the number of top ranked genes for Fisher and RFE. The horizontal lines are the error rates of KNN using all features.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of the recovery of signal genes by TSP, Fisher and RFE as correlation varies among signal genes. The percentage (mean ± SE) of signal genes recovered in the 30 or 60 top-ranked genes by feature selectors TSP, Fisher and RFE, in A) as within-block correlation (ρ) varies in Data-I, and in B) as inter-block (ρ') varies in Data-II.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of various classifiers in Data-I with different sample sizes in the training set. The classification error rates (mean) on Data-I (ρ = 0.45), with the training sets containing different sample sizes (n = 25, 50, 75, 100).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparison of TSP, Fisher and RFE as feature selection methods in the cancer prognostic datasets. A) shows the SVM and KNN classification error rates on the test set of van't Veer Breast cancer dataset at various gene selection levels, using TSP, Fisher and RFE as feature selection methods. B) shows LOOCV error rates by SVM in Lung adenocarcinoma and Medulloblastoma datasets at various gene selection levels, using TSP, Fisher and RFE as feature selection methods. The x-axis is the number of top ranked gene pairs for TSP, or half the number of top ranked genes for Fisher and RFE. The horizontal lines are the error rates of SVM or KNN using all features.

References

    1. Hanshall S. Tissue microarray. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2003;8(3):347–58. - PubMed
    1. Asyali MH, Colak D, Demirkaya O, Inan MS. Gene expression profile classification: A Review. Current Bioinformatics. 2006;I:55–73.
    1. van 't Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AA, Mao M, Peterse HL, van der Kooy K, Marton MJ, Witteveen AT, Schreiber GJ, Kerkhoven RM, Roberts C, Linsley PS, Bernards R, Friend SH. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002;415:530–536. doi: 10.1038/415530a. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beer DG, Kardia SLR, Huang CC, Giordano TJ, Levin AM, Misek DE, Lin L, Chen G, Gharib TG, Thomas DG. Gene expression profile predicts survival of patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Nature Medicine. 2002;8:816–824. - PubMed
    1. Pomeroy SL, Tamayo P, Gaasenbeek M, Sturla LM, Angelo M, McLaughlin ME, Kim JY, Goumnerovak LC, Blackk PM, Lau C, Allen JC, ZagzagI D, Olson JM, Curran T, Wetmore C, Biegel JA, Poggio T, Mukherjee S, Rifkin R, Califanokk A, Stolovitzkykk G, Louis DN, Mesirov JP, Lander ES, Golub TR. Prediction of central nervous system embryonal tumour outcome base on gene expression. Nature. 2002;415:436–442. doi: 10.1038/415436a. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources