group membership prediction when known groups consist of unknown subgroups:a monte carlo comparison of methods
Clicks: 253
ID: 198851
2014
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
253 views
61 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #635 of 1,131 articles by views in accounts of chemical research
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,131 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Classification using standard statistical methods such as linear discriminant analysis (LDA) or logistic regression (LR) presume knowledge of group membership prior to the development of an algorithm for prediction. However, in many real world applications members of the same nominal group, might in fact come from different subpopulations on the underlying construct. For example, individuals diagnosed with depression will not all have the same levels of this disorder, though for the purposes of LDA or LR they will be treated in the same manner. The goal of this simulation study was to examine the performance of several methods for group classification in the case where within group membership was not homogeneous. For example, suppose there are 3 known groups but within each group two unknown classes. Several approaches were compared, including LDA, LR, Classification and Regression Trees (CART), Generalized Additive Models (GAM), and mixture discriminant analysis (MIXDA). Results of the study indicated that CART and mixture discriminant analysis were the most effective tools for situations in which known groups were not homogeneous, whereas LDA, LR and GAM had the highest rates of misclassification. Implications of these results for theory and practice are discussed.
| Reference Key |
efinch2014frontiersgroup
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Holmes eFinch;Jocelyn E Bolin;Ken eKelley |
| Journal | accounts of chemical research |
| Year | 2014 |
| DOI |
10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00337
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.