Heidema A Geert, Nagelkerke Nico
Maastricht University.
Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2008;7(2):Article5. doi: 10.2202/1544-6115.1341. Epub 2008 Feb 8.
To discriminate between breast cancer patients and controls, we used a three-step approach to obtain our decision rule. First, we ranked the mass/charge values using random forests, because it generates importance indices that take possible interactions into account. We observed that the top ranked variables consisted of highly correlated contiguous mass/charge values, which were grouped in the second step into new variables. Finally, these newly created variables were used as predictors to find a suitable discrimination rule. In this last step, we compared three different methods, namely Classification and Regression Tree (CART), logistic regression and penalized logistic regression. Logistic regression and penalized logistic regression performed equally well and both had a higher classification accuracy than CART. The model obtained with penalized logistic regression was chosen as we hypothesized that this model would provide a better classification accuracy in the validation set. The solution had a good performance on the training set with a classification accuracy of 86.3%, and a sensitivity and specificity of 86.8% and 85.7%, respectively.
为了区分乳腺癌患者和对照组,我们采用了一种三步法来获得决策规则。首先,我们使用随机森林对质荷比(m/z)值进行排序,因为它会生成考虑了可能相互作用的重要性指标。我们观察到排名靠前的变量由高度相关的连续质荷比值组成,这些值在第二步中被组合成新的变量。最后,这些新创建的变量被用作预测变量来寻找合适的判别规则。在最后一步中,我们比较了三种不同的方法,即分类与回归树(CART)、逻辑回归和惩罚逻辑回归。逻辑回归和惩罚逻辑回归表现相当,且两者的分类准确率均高于CART。由于我们假设该模型在验证集中将提供更好的分类准确率,因此选择了通过惩罚逻辑回归获得的模型。该解决方案在训练集上表现良好,分类准确率为86.3%,敏感性和特异性分别为86.8%和85.7%。