Robust machine learning algorithms for predicting coastal water quality index

Advances in neuroimaging, genomic, motion tracking, eye-tracking and many other technology-based data collection methods have led to a torrent of high dimensional datasets, which commonly have a small number of samples because of the intrinsic high cost of data collection involving human participants. High dimensional data with a small number of samples is of critical importance for identifying biomarkers and conducting feasibility and pilot work, however it can lead to biased machine learning (ML) performance estimates. Our review of studies which have applied ML to predict autistic from non-autistic individuals showed that small sample size is associated with higher reported classification accuracy. Thus, we have investigated whether this bias could be caused by the use of validation methods which do not sufficiently control overfitting. Our simulations show that K-fold Cross-Validation (CV) produces strongly biased performance estimates with small sample sizes, and the bias is still evident with sample size of 1000. Nested CV and train/test split approaches produce robust and unbiased performance estimates regardless of sample size. We also show that feature selection if performed on pooled training and testing data is contributing to bias considerably more than parameter tuning. In addition, the contribution to bias by data dimensionality, hyper-parameter space and number of CV folds was explored, and validation methods were compared with discriminable data. The results suggest how to design robust testing methodologies when working with small datasets and how to interpret the results of other studies based on what validation method was used.

Summary Decision tree methodology is a commonly used data mining method for establishing classification systems based on multiple covariates or for developing prediction algorithms for a target variable. This method classifies a population into branch-like segments that construct an inverted tree with a root node, internal nodes, and leaf nodes. The algorithm is non-parametric and can efficiently deal with large, complicated datasets without imposing a complicated parametric structure. When the sample size is large enough, study data can be divided into training and validation datasets. Using the training dataset to build a decision tree model and a validation dataset to decide on the appropriate tree size needed to achieve the optimal final model. This paper introduces frequently used algorithms used to develop decision trees (including CART, C4.5, CHAID, and QUEST) and describes the SPSS and SAS programs that can be used to visualize tree structure.

Regression analysis makes up a large part of supervised machine learning, and consists of the prediction of a continuous independent target from a set of other predictor variables. The difference between binary classification and regression is in the target range: in binary classification, the target can have only two values (usually encoded as 0 and 1), while in regression the target can have multiple values. Even if regression analysis has been employed in a huge number of machine learning studies, no consensus has been reached on a single, unified, standard metric to assess the results of the regression itself. Many studies employ the mean square error (MSE) and its rooted variant (RMSE), or the mean absolute error (MAE) and its percentage variant (MAPE). Although useful, these rates share a common drawback: since their values can range between zero and +infinity, a single value of them does not say much about the performance of the regression with respect to the distribution of the ground truth elements. In this study, we focus on two rates that actually generate a high score only if the majority of the elements of a ground truth group has been correctly predicted: the coefficient of determination (also known as R -squared or R 2 ) and the symmetric mean absolute percentage error (SMAPE). After showing their mathematical properties, we report a comparison between R 2 and SMAPE in several use cases and in two real medical scenarios. Our results demonstrate that the coefficient of determination ( R -squared) is more informative and truthful than SMAPE, and does not have the interpretability limitations of MSE, RMSE, MAE and MAPE. We therefore suggest the usage of R -squared as standard metric to evaluate regression analyses in any scientific domain.