Results 1 -
3 of
3
Defining and characterising structural uncertainty in decision analytic models. Research Paper 9
, 2006
"... CHE Discussion Papers (DPs) began publication in 1983 as a means of making current research material more widely available to health economists and other potential users. So as to speed up the dissemination process, papers were originally published by CHE and distributed by post to a worldwide reade ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 1 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
CHE Discussion Papers (DPs) began publication in 1983 as a means of making current research material more widely available to health economists and other potential users. So as to speed up the dissemination process, papers were originally published by CHE and distributed by post to a worldwide readership. The new CHE Research Paper series takes over that function and provides access to current research output via web-based publication, although hard copy will continue to be available (but subject to charge). Disclaimer Papers published in the CHE Research Paper (RP) series are intended as a contribution to current research. Work and ideas reported in RPs may not always represent the final position and as such may sometimes need to be treated as work in progress. The material and views expressed in RPs are solely those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the collective views of CHE research staff or their research funders. Further copies Copies of this paper are freely available to download from the CHE website www.york.ac.uk/inst/che/pubs. Access to downloaded material is provided on the understanding that it is intended for personal use. Copies of downloaded papers may be distributed to third-parties subject to the proviso that the CHE publication source is properly acknowledged and that such distribution is not subject to any payment. Printed copies are available on request at a charge of £5.00 per copy. Please contact the
Toxicogenomics | Article Using Decision Forest to Classify Prostate Cancer Samples on the Basis of SELDI-TOF MS Data: Assessing Chance Correlation and Prediction Confidence
"... Class prediction using “omics ” data is playing an increasing role in toxicogenomics, diagnosis/prognosis, and risk assessment. These data are usually noisy and represented by relatively few samples and a very large number of predictor variables (e.g., genes of DNA microarray data or m/z peaks of ma ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
Class prediction using “omics ” data is playing an increasing role in toxicogenomics, diagnosis/prognosis, and risk assessment. These data are usually noisy and represented by relatively few samples and a very large number of predictor variables (e.g., genes of DNA microarray data or m/z peaks of mass spectrometry data). These characteristics manifest the importance of assessing potential random correlation and overfitting of noise for a classification model based on omics data. We present a novel classification method, decision forest (DF), for class prediction using omics data. DF combines the results of multiple heterogeneous but comparable decision tree (DT) models to produce a consensus prediction. The method is less prone to overfitting of noise and chance correlation. A DF model was developed to predict presence of prostate cancer using a proteomic data set generated from surface-enhanced laser deposition/ ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (SELDI-TOF MS). The degree of chance correlation and prediction confidence of the model was rigorously assessed by extensive cross-validation and randomization testing. Comparison of model prediction with imposed random correlation demonstrated biologic relevance of the model and the reduction of overfitting in DF. Furthermore, two confidence levels (high and low confidences) were assigned to each prediction,
Time Series Models for Forecasting: Testing or Combining?
"... In this paper we compare forecasting performance of hypothesis testing procedures with a model combining algorithm called AFTER. Testing procedures are commonly used in practice to select a model based on which forecasts are made. However, besides the well-known difficulty in dealing with multipl ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
In this paper we compare forecasting performance of hypothesis testing procedures with a model combining algorithm called AFTER. Testing procedures are commonly used in practice to select a model based on which forecasts are made. However, besides the well-known difficulty in dealing with multiple tests, the testing approach has a potentially serious drawback: controlling the probability of Type I error can excessively favor the null, which can be problematic for the purpose of forecasting.

