Paper detail

Subsampling Winner Algorithm for Feature Selection in Large Regression Data

Feature selection from a large number of covariates (aka features) in a regression analysis remains a challenge in data science, especially in terms of its potential of scaling to ever-enlarging data and finding a group of scientifically meaningful features. For example, to develop new, responsive drug targets for ovarian cancer, the actual false discovery rate (FDR) of a practical feature selection procedure must also match the target FDR. The popular approach to feature selection, when true features are sparse, is to use a penalized likelihood or a shrinkage estimation, such as a LASSO, SCAD, Elastic Net, or MCP procedure (call them benchmark procedures). We present a different approach using a new subsampling method, called the Subsampling Winner algorithm (SWA). The central idea of SWA is analogous to that used for the selection of US national merit scholars. SWA uses a "base procedure" to analyze each of the subsamples, computes the scores of all features according to the performance of each feature from all subsample analyses, obtains the "semifinalist" based on the resulting scores, and then determines the "finalists," i.e., the most important features. Due to its subsampling nature, SWA can scale to data of any dimension in principle. The SWA also has the best-controlled actual FDR in comparison with the benchmark procedures and the randomForest, while having a competitive true-feature discovery rate. We also suggest practical add-on strategies to SWA with or without a penalized benchmark procedure to further assure the chance of "true" discovery. Our application of SWA to the ovarian serous cystadenocarcinoma specimens from the Broad Institute revealed functionally important genes and pathways, which we verified by additional genomics tools. This second-stage investigation is essential in the current discussion of the proper use of P-values.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.