Comparison of Feature Selection Methods-Modelling COPD Outcomes

被引:0
|
作者
Cabral, Jorge [1 ]
Macedo, Pedro [1 ]
Marques, Alda [2 ,3 ]
Afreixo, Vera [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Aveiro, Ctr Res & Dev Math & Applicat CIDMA, Dept Math, P-3810193 Aveiro, Portugal
[2] Univ Aveiro, Sch Hlth Sci ESSUA, Resp Res & Rehabil Lab Lab3R, P-3810193 Aveiro, Portugal
[3] Univ Aveiro, Inst Biomed iBiMED, P-3810193 Aveiro, Portugal
关键词
feature selection; stepwise selection; LASSO; Boruta; extreme gradient boosting; random forest; COPD; OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY-DISEASE; VARIABLE SELECTION; IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; REGRESSION; DYSPNEA; VALIDATION; LIKELIHOOD; BORUTA; IMPACT; SCALE;
D O I
10.3390/math12091398
中图分类号
O1 [数学];
学科分类号
0701 ; 070101 ;
摘要
Selecting features associated with patient-centered outcomes is of major relevance yet the importance given depends on the method. We aimed to compare stepwise selection, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, random forest, Boruta, extreme gradient boosting and generalized maximum entropy estimation and suggest an aggregated evaluation. We also aimed to describe outcomes in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Data from 42 patients were collected at baseline and at 5 months. Acute exacerbations were the aggregated most important feature in predicting the difference in the handgrip muscle strength (dHMS) and the COVID-19 lockdown group had an increased dHMS of 3.08 kg (CI95 approximate to [0.04, 6.11]). Pack-years achieved the highest importance in predicting the difference in the one-minute sit-to-stand test and no clinical change during lockdown was detected. Charlson comorbidity index was the most important feature in predicting the difference in the COPD assessment test (dCAT) and participants with severe values are expected to have a decreased dCAT of 6.51 points (CI95 approximate to [2.52, 10.50]). Feature selection methods yield inconsistent results, particularly extreme gradient boosting and random forest with the remaining. Models with features ordered by median importance had a meaningful clinical interpretation. Lockdown seem to have had a negative impact in the upper-limb muscle strength.
引用
收藏
页数:23
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparison of Different EHG Feature Selection Methods for the Detection of Preterm Labor
    Alamedine, D.
    Khalil, M.
    Marque, C.
    [J]. COMPUTATIONAL AND MATHEMATICAL METHODS IN MEDICINE, 2013, 2013
  • [32] Comparison of Feature Selection Methods for Cross-Laboratory Microarray Analysis
    Liu, Hsi-Che
    Peng, Pei-Chen
    Hsieh, Tzung-Chien
    Yeh, Ting-Chi
    Lin, Chih-Jen
    Chen, Chien-Yu
    Hou, Jen-Yin
    Shih, Lee-Yung
    Liang, Der-Cherng
    [J]. IEEE-ACM TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY AND BIOINFORMATICS, 2013, 10 (03) : 593 - 604
  • [33] Comparison of Feature Selection Methods for Sentiment Analysis on Turkish Twitter Data
    Parlar, Tuba
    Sarac, Esra
    Ozel, Selma Ayse
    [J]. 2017 25TH SIGNAL PROCESSING AND COMMUNICATIONS APPLICATIONS CONFERENCE (SIU), 2017,
  • [34] Comparison of Automated Feature Selection and Reduction methods on the Condition Monitoring issue
    Lopez de Calle, Kerman
    Ferreiro, Susana
    Arnaiz, Aitor
    Sierra, Basilio
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 7TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THROUGH-LIFE ENGINEERING SERVICES, 2018, 16 : 2 - 9
  • [35] Comparison of Calibration Methods with and without Feature Selection for the Analysis of HPLC Data
    Piedad Parrilla Vázquez
    María Martínez Galera
    Antonia Garrido Frenich
    José L. Martínez Vidal
    [J]. Analytical Sciences, 2000, 16 : 49 - 56
  • [36] Comparison of Feature Selection Methods for Predicting RT-Induced Toxicity
    Nunez-Benjumea, Francisco J.
    Moreno-Conde, Jesus
    Gonzalez-Garcia, Sara
    Moreno-Conde, Alberto
    Lopez-Guerra, Jose L.
    Ortiz-Gordillo, Maria J.
    Parra-Calderon, Carlos L.
    [J]. ICT FOR HEALTH SCIENCE RESEARCH, 2019, 258 : 253 - 254
  • [37] Comparison of linear, nonlinear, and feature selection methods for EEG signal classification
    Garrett, D
    Peterson, DA
    Anderson, CW
    Thaut, MH
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL SYSTEMS AND REHABILITATION ENGINEERING, 2003, 11 (02) : 141 - 144
  • [38] An Experimental Comparison of Feature-Selection and Classification Methods for Microarray Datasets
    Cilia, Nicole Dalia
    De Stefano, Claudio
    Fontanella, Francesco
    Raimondo, Stefano
    di Freca, Alessandra Scotto
    [J]. INFORMATION, 2019, 10 (03)
  • [39] EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON OF TWO FEATURE SELECTION METHODS BASED ON GENERIC ALGORITHM
    Liu, Bo
    Zhai, Jun-Hai
    Liu, Hai-Bo
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF 2017 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MACHINE LEARNING AND CYBERNETICS (ICMLC), VOL 1, 2017, : 241 - 245
  • [40] COMPARISON FEATURE SELECTION METHODS FOR SUBTROPICAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION WITH HYPERSPECTRAL DATA
    Li, Qiaosi
    Wong, Frankie Kwan Kit
    Fung, Tung
    [J]. 2019 IEEE INTERNATIONAL GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING SYMPOSIUM (IGARSS 2019), 2019, : 3693 - 3696