Literature DB >> 20135078

An experimental evaluation of boosting methods for classification.

R Stollhoff1, W Sauerbrei, M Schumacher.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In clinical medicine, the accuracy achieved by classification rules is often not sufficient to justify their use in daily practice. In order to improve classifiers it has become popular to combine single classification rules into a classification ensemble. Two popular boosting methods will be compared with classical statistical approaches.
METHODS: Using data from a clinical study on the diagnosis of breast tumors and by simulation we will compare AdaBoost with gradient boosting ensembles of regression trees. We will also consider a tree approach and logistic regression as traditional competitors. In logistic regression we allow to select non- linear effects by the fractional polynomial approach. Performance of the classifiers will be assessed by estimated misclassification rates and the Brier score.
RESULTS: We will show that boosting of simple base classifiers gives classification rules with improved predictive ability. However, the performance of boosting classifiers was not generally superior to the performance of logistic regression. In contrast to the computer-intensive methods the latter are based on classifiers which are much easier to interpret and to use.
CONCLUSIONS: In medical applications, the logistic regression model remains a method of choice or, at least, a serious competitor of more sophisticated techniques. Refinement of boosting methods by using optimized number of boosting steps may lead to further improvement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20135078     DOI: 10.3414/ME0543

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Methods Inf Med        ISSN: 0026-1270            Impact factor:   2.176


  6 in total

1.  Regularization for generalized additive mixed models by likelihood-based boosting.

Authors:  A Groll; G Tutz
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 2.176

2.  Mining geriatric assessment data for in-patient fall prediction models and high-risk subgroups.

Authors:  Michael Marschollek; Mehmet Gövercin; Stefan Rust; Matthias Gietzelt; Mareike Schulze; Klaus-Hendrik Wolf; Elisabeth Steinhagen-Thiessen
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 2.796

3.  Boosting for high-dimensional two-class prediction.

Authors:  Rok Blagus; Lara Lusa
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 3.169

4.  AI and High-Grade Glioma for Diagnosis and Outcome Prediction: Do All Machine Learning Models Perform Equally Well?

Authors:  Luca Pasquini; Antonio Napolitano; Martina Lucignani; Emanuela Tagliente; Francesco Dellepiane; Maria Camilla Rossi-Espagnet; Matteo Ritrovato; Antonello Vidiri; Veronica Villani; Giulio Ranazzi; Antonella Stoppacciaro; Andrea Romano; Alberto Di Napoli; Alessandro Bozzao
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  A Fact-Finding Procedure Integrating Machine Learning and AHP Technique to Predict Delayed Diagnosis of Bladder Patients with Hematuria.

Authors:  Chia-Lun Lo; Ya-Hui Yang; Hsiao-Ting Tseng
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2021-08-21       Impact factor: 2.682

6.  Improving case-based reasoning systems by combining k-nearest neighbour algorithm with logistic regression in the prediction of patients' registration on the renal transplant waiting list.

Authors:  Boris Campillo-Gimenez; Wassim Jouini; Sahar Bayat; Marc Cuggia
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.