What should be expected from feature selection in small-sample settings
Open Access
- 26 July 2006
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Bioinformatics
- Vol. 22 (19) , 2430-2436
- https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl407
Abstract
Motivation: High-throughput technologies for rapid measurement of vast numbers of biological variables offer the potential for highly discriminatory diagnosis and prognosis; however, high dimensionality together with small samples creates the need for feature selection, while at the same time making feature-selection algorithms less reliable. Feature selection must typically be carried out from among thousands of gene-expression features and in the context of a small sample (small number of microarrays). Two basic questions arise: (1) Can one expect feature selection to yield a feature set whose error is close to that of an optimal feature set? (2) If a good feature set is not found, should it be expected that good feature sets do not exist? Results: The two questions translate quantitatively into questions concerning conditional expectation. (1) Given the error of an optimal feature set, what is the conditionally expected error of the selected feature set? (2) Given the error of the selected feature set, what is the conditionally expected error of the optimal feature set? We address these questions using three classification rules (linear discriminant analysis, linear support vector machine and k-nearest-neighbor classification) and feature selection via sequential floating forward search and the t-test. We consider three feature-label models and patient data from a study concerning survival prognosis for breast cancer. With regard to the two focus questions, there is similarity across all experiments: (1) One cannot expect to find a feature set whose error is close to optimal, and (2) the inability to find a good feature set should not lead to the conclusion that good feature sets do not exist. In practice, the latter conclusion may be more immediately relevant, since when faced with the common occurrence that a feature set discovered from the data does not give satisfactory results, the experimenter can draw no conclusions regarding the existence or nonexistence of suitable feature sets. Availability: Contact:edward@ece.tamu.eduKeywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Impact of error estimation on feature selectionPattern Recognition, 2005
- High-level Coexpression of JAG1 and NOTCH1 Is Observed in Human Breast Cancer and Is Associated with Poor Overall SurvivalCancer Research, 2005
- Colon cancer prognosis prediction by gene expression profilingOncogene, 2005
- Prediction of Clinical Outcome Using Gene Expression Profiling and Artificial Neural Networks for Patients with NeuroblastomaCancer Research, 2004
- Bolstered error estimationPattern Recognition, 2004
- Is cross-validation valid for small-sample microarray classification?Bioinformatics, 2004
- A Gene-Expression Signature as a Predictor of Survival in Breast CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancerNature, 2002
- Comparison of algorithms that select features for pattern classifiersPattern Recognition, 2000
- Floating search methods in feature selectionPattern Recognition Letters, 1994