IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v12y2024i9p1398-d1388262.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Feature Selection Methods—Modelling COPD Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Jorge Cabral

    (Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications (CIDMA), Department of Mathematics, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

  • Pedro Macedo

    (Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications (CIDMA), Department of Mathematics, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

  • Alda Marques

    (Respiratory Research and Rehabilitation Laboratory (Lab3R), School of Health Sciences (ESSUA) and Institute of Biomedicine (iBiMED), University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

  • Vera Afreixo

    (Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications (CIDMA), Department of Mathematics, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal)

Abstract

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 ≈ [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 ≈ [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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorge Cabral & Pedro Macedo & Alda Marques & Vera Afreixo, 2024. "Comparison of Feature Selection Methods—Modelling COPD Outcomes," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-23, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:9:p:1398-:d:1388262
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/9/1398/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/9/1398/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kursa, Miron B. & Rudnicki, Witold R., 2010. "Feature Selection with the Boruta Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 36(i11).
    2. Fan J. & Li R., 2001. "Variable Selection via Nonconcave Penalized Likelihood and its Oracle Properties," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 1348-1360, December.
    3. Lin, Dongyu & Foster, Dean P. & Ungar, Lyle H., 2011. "VIF Regression: A Fast Regression Algorithm for Large Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(493), pages 232-247.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sangjin Kim & Jong-Min Kim, 2019. "Two-Stage Classification with SIS Using a New Filter Ranking Method in High Throughput Data," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-16, May.
    2. Antoniadis, Anestis & Gaucher, Solenne & Goude, Yannig, 2024. "Hierarchical transfer learning with applications to electricity load forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 641-660.
    3. Abhijeet R Patil & Sangjin Kim, 2020. "Combination of Ensembles of Regularized Regression Models with Resampling-Based Lasso Feature Selection in High Dimensional Data," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-23, January.
    4. Tutz, Gerhard & Pößnecker, Wolfgang & Uhlmann, Lorenz, 2015. "Variable selection in general multinomial logit models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 207-222.
    5. Xu, Yang & Zhao, Shishun & Hu, Tao & Sun, Jianguo, 2021. "Variable selection for generalized odds rate mixture cure models with interval-censored failure time data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    6. Emmanouil Androulakis & Christos Koukouvinos & Kalliopi Mylona & Filia Vonta, 2010. "A real survival analysis application via variable selection methods for Cox's proportional hazards model," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(8), pages 1399-1406.
    7. Singh, Rakhi & Stufken, John, 2024. "Factor selection in screening experiments by aggregation over random models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    8. Koki Momoki & Takuma Yoshida, 2024. "Hypothesis testing for varying coefficient models in tail index regression," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 65(6), pages 3821-3852, August.
    9. Lili Pan & Ziyan Luo & Naihua Xiu, 2017. "Restricted Robinson Constraint Qualification and Optimality for Cardinality-Constrained Cone Programming," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 104-118, October.
    10. Gerhard Tutz & Moritz Berger, 2018. "Tree-structured modelling of categorical predictors in generalized additive regression," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 12(3), pages 737-758, September.
    11. Tong, Jianfeng & Liu, Zhenxing & Zhang, Yong & Zheng, Xiujuan & Jin, Junyang, 2023. "Improved multi-gate mixture-of-experts framework for multi-step prediction of gas load," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    12. Chenchuan (Mark) Li & Ulrich K. Müller, 2021. "Linear regression with many controls of limited explanatory power," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), pages 405-442, May.
    13. Shuichi Kawano, 2014. "Selection of tuning parameters in bridge regression models via Bayesian information criterion," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 55(4), pages 1207-1223, November.
    14. Asma Shaheen & Javed Iqbal, 2018. "Spatial Distribution and Mobility Assessment of Carcinogenic Heavy Metals in Soil Profiles Using Geostatistics and Random Forest, Boruta Algorithm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, March.
    15. Hang Yu & Yuanjia Wang & Donglin Zeng, 2023. "A general framework of nonparametric feature selection in high‐dimensional data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 951-963, June.
    16. Qianyun Li & Runmin Shi & Faming Liang, 2019. "Drug sensitivity prediction with high-dimensional mixture regression," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-18, February.
    17. Shuang Zhang & Xingdong Feng, 2022. "Distributed identification of heterogeneous treatment effects," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 57-89, March.
    18. Ramón Ferri-García & María del Mar Rueda, 2022. "Variable selection in Propensity Score Adjustment to mitigate selection bias in online surveys," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 63(6), pages 1829-1881, December.
    19. Jun Zhu & Hsin‐Cheng Huang & Perla E. Reyes, 2010. "On selection of spatial linear models for lattice data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 72(3), pages 389-402, June.
    20. Zak-Szatkowska, Malgorzata & Bogdan, Malgorzata, 2011. "Modified versions of the Bayesian Information Criterion for sparse Generalized Linear Models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(11), pages 2908-2924, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:9:p:1398-:d:1388262. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.