Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39732866›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

A quantitative benchmark of neural network feature selection methods for detecting nonlinear signals.

Antoine Passemiers, Pietro Folco, Daniele Raimondi, Giovanni Birolo, Yves Moreau, Piero Fariselli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Mapping Cell Identity from scRNA-seq: A primer on computational methods.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Antoine PassemiersESAT-STADIUS, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. antoine.passemiers@kuleuven.be.
Pietro FolcoDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Daniele RaimondiESAT-STADIUS, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. daniele.raimondi@igmm.cnrs.fr.
Giovanni BiroloDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Yves MoreauESAT-STADIUS, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Piero FariselliDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy. piero.fariselli@unito.it.

Funding

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 12Y5623NFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 1SB2721NFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek S005024N
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID39732866
PMCPMC11682240

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.