CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic classification based on omics data presents challenges for most conventional supervised learning methods. Validation is a vital step towards the practical use of diagnostic classifiers. A classifier should be validated from three perspectives of assessment: (1) overall quality (prediction accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity); (2) prediction confidence; and (3) chance correlation. These can be more readily assessed in a consensus method, such as DF, than in other conventional methods using cross-validation. For DF, we have found that

  • Combining multiple valid tree classifiers that use unique sets of variables into a single decision function produces a higher quality classifier than individual trees.

  • The prediction confidence can be readily calculated.

  • Since the feature selection and classifier development are integrated in DF, cross-validation avoids selection bias and become a more useful means than external validation in assessing a DF classifier’s robustness and quality.

  • Carrying out many runs of cross-validation is computationally inexpensive, which provides an unbiased assessment of a classifier’s predictive capability, prediction confidence and chance correlation and facilitates identification of potential biomarkers.

REFERENCES

Tong, W., Q. Xie, H. Hong, H. Fang, L. Shi, R. Perkins, and E. Petricoin. 2004. Using Decision Forest to classy prostate samples based on SELDI-TOF MS data: Assessing prediction confidence and chance correlation. Environ. Health Perspect. 112(16):1622-1627.

Tong, W., H. Fang, Q. Xie, H. Hong, L. Shi, R. Perkins, U. Scherf, F. Goodsaid, and F. Frueh. 2006. Gaining confidence on molecular classification through consensus modeling and validation. Toxicol. Mech. Method. 16(2-3):59-68.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement