Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/23908Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Castaldi, P. J. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Dahabreh, I. J. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Ioannidis, J. P. | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2015-11-24T19:36:36Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2015-11-24T19:36:36Z | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1477-4054 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/23908 | - |
| dc.rights | Default Licence | - |
| dc.subject | Classification/*methods | en |
| dc.subject | Computational Biology/*methods | en |
| dc.subject | Databases, Factual | en |
| dc.subject | Pattern Recognition, Automated/methods | en |
| dc.subject | Proteomics | en |
| dc.subject | PubMed | en |
| dc.title | An empirical assessment of validation practices for molecular classifiers | en |
| heal.type | journalArticle | - |
| heal.type.en | Journal article | en |
| heal.type.el | Άρθρο Περιοδικού | el |
| heal.identifier.primary | 10.1093/bib/bbq073 | - |
| heal.identifier.secondary | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21300697 | - |
| heal.identifier.secondary | http://bib.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/3/189.full.pdf | - |
| heal.language | en | - |
| heal.access | campus | - |
| heal.recordProvider | Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Σχολή Επιστημών Υγείας. Τμήμα Ιατρικής | el |
| heal.publicationDate | 2011 | - |
| heal.abstract | Proposed molecular classifiers may be overfit to idiosyncrasies of noisy genomic and proteomic data. Cross-validation methods are often used to obtain estimates of classification accuracy, but both simulations and case studies suggest that, when inappropriate methods are used, bias may ensue. Bias can be bypassed and generalizability can be tested by external (independent) validation. We evaluated 35 studies that have reported on external validation of a molecular classifier. We extracted information on study design and methodological features, and compared the performance of molecular classifiers in internal cross-validation versus external validation for 28 studies where both had been performed. We demonstrate that the majority of studies pursued cross-validation practices that are likely to overestimate classifier performance. Most studies were markedly underpowered to detect a 20% decrease in sensitivity or specificity between internal cross-validation and external validation [median power was 36% (IQR, 21-61%) and 29% (IQR, 15-65%), respectively]. The median reported classification performance for sensitivity and specificity was 94% and 98%, respectively, in cross-validation and 88% and 81% for independent validation. The relative diagnostic odds ratio was 3.26 (95% CI 2.04-5.21) for cross-validation versus independent validation. Finally, we reviewed all studies (n = 758) which cited those in our study sample, and identified only one instance of additional subsequent independent validation of these classifiers. In conclusion, these results document that many cross-validation practices employed in the literature are potentially biased and genuine progress in this field will require adoption of routine external validation of molecular classifiers, preferably in much larger studies than in current practice. | en |
| heal.journalName | Brief Bioinform | en |
| heal.journalType | peer-reviewed | - |
| heal.fullTextAvailability | TRUE | - |
| Appears in Collections: | Άρθρα σε επιστημονικά περιοδικά ( Ανοικτά) - ΙΑΤ | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Castaldi-2011-An empirical assessm.pdf | 434.15 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open Request a copy |
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
