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
Comparative Study
. 2008;9 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S13.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-S1-S13.

A comparative study of different machine learning methods on microarray gene expression data

Affiliations
Comparative Study

A comparative study of different machine learning methods on microarray gene expression data

Mehdi Pirooznia et al. BMC Genomics. 2008.

Abstract

Background: Several classification and feature selection methods have been studied for the identification of differentially expressed genes in microarray data. Classification methods such as SVM, RBF Neural Nets, MLP Neural Nets, Bayesian, Decision Tree and Random Forrest methods have been used in recent studies. The accuracy of these methods has been calculated with validation methods such as v-fold validation. However there is lack of comparison between these methods to find a better framework for classification, clustering and analysis of microarray gene expression results.

Results: In this study, we compared the efficiency of the classification methods including; SVM, RBF Neural Nets, MLP Neural Nets, Bayesian, Decision Tree and Random Forrest methods. The v-fold cross validation was used to calculate the accuracy of the classifiers. Some of the common clustering methods including K-means, DBC, and EM clustering were applied to the datasets and the efficiency of these methods have been analysed. Further the efficiency of the feature selection methods including support vector machine recursive feature elimination (SVM-RFE), Chi Squared, and CSF were compared. In each case these methods were applied to eight different binary (two class) microarray datasets. We evaluated the class prediction efficiency of each gene list in training and test cross-validation using supervised classifiers.

Conclusions: We presented a study in which we compared some of the common used classification, clustering, and feature selection methods. We applied these methods to eight publicly available datasets, and compared how these methods performed in class prediction of test datasets. We reported that the choice of feature selection methods, the number of genes in the gene list, the number of cases (samples) substantially influence classification success. Based on features chosen by these methods, error rates and accuracy of several classification algorithms were obtained. Results revealed the importance of feature selection in accurately classifying new samples and how an integrated feature selection and classification algorithm is performing and is capable of identifying significant genes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Percentage accuracy of 10-fold cross validation of classification methods for all genes. Results of 10-fold cross validation of the classification methods applied to all datasets without performing any feature selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Percentage accuracy of 10-fold cross validation of clustering methods for all genes. Results of 10-fold cross validation of the two class clustering methods applied to all datasets,
Figure 3
Figure 3
Accuracy of 10-fold cross validation of feature selection and classification methods. Accuracy of 10-fold cross validation of the pairwise combinations of the feature selection and classification methods
Figure 4
Figure 4
Overview of the analysis pipeline. The pipeline illustrates the procedure of the pairwise combinations of the feature selection and classification methods

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Guyon I, Weston J, Barnhill S, Vapnik V. Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Machine Learning. 2001;46:389–422.
    1. Duan KB, Rajapakse JC, Wang H, Azuaje F. Multiple SVM-RFE for gene selection in cancer classification with expression data. IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. 2005;4:228–234. doi: 10.1109/TNB.2005.853657. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Liu H., Setiono R. Chi2: Feature Selection and Discretization of Numeric Attributes. Proceedings of the IEEE 7th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. 1995. pp. 338–391.
    1. Hall M. A. Correlation-based feature selection for machine learning. PhD thesis, University of Waikato, Department of Computer Science, Hamilton, New Zealand. 1998.
    1. Wang Y, Tetko IV, Hall MA, Frank E, Facius A, Mayer KF, Mewes HW. Gene selection from microarray data for cancer classification--a machine learning approach. Comput Biol Chem. 2005;29:37–46. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2004.11.001. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources