ArticleScientific reports2024
A quantitative benchmark of neural network feature selection methods for detecting nonlinear signals.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Harnessing Machine Learning, a Subset of Artificial Intelligence, for Early Detection and Diagnosis of Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Epistemic frontiers and the distinction between causality, information, and predictability in pattern recognition.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Can Artificial Intelligence Interpret Pulmonary Function Tests and Predict Prolonged Air Leaks After Lung Resection.Cancers · 2026Article
- Mapping Cell Identity from scRNA-seq: A primer on computational methods.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Classification and regression problems can be challenging when the relevant input features are diluted in noisy datasets, in particular when the sample size is limited. Traditional Feature Selection (FS) methods address this issue by relying on some assumptions such as the linear or additive relationship between features. Recently, a proliferation of Deep Learning (DL) models has emerged to tackle both FS and prediction at the same time, allowing non-linear modeling of the selected features. In this study, we systematically assess the performance of DL-based feature selection methods on synthetic datasets of varying complexity, and benchmark their efficacy in uncovering non-linear relationships between features. We also use the same settings to benchmark the reliability of gradient-based feature attribution techniques for Neural Networks (NNs), such as Saliency Maps (SM). A quantitative evaluation of the reliability of these approaches is currently missing. Our analysis indicates that even simple synthetic datasets can significantly challenge most of the DL-based FS and SM methods, while Random Forests, TreeShap, mRMR and LassoNet are the best performing FS methods. Our conclusion is that when quantifying the relevance of a few non linearly-entangled predictive features diluted in a large number of irrelevant noisy variables, DL-based FS and SM interpretation methods are still far from being reliable.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.