Classification Using Generalized Partial Least Squares

The advances in computational biology have made simultaneous monitoring of thousands of features possible. The high throughput technologies not only bring about a much richer information context in which to study various aspects of gene functions but they also present challenge of analyzing data with large number of covariates and few samples. As an integral part of machine learning, classification of samples into two or more categories is almost always of interest to scientists. In this paper, we address the question of classification in this setting by extending partial least squares (PLS), a popular dimension reduction tool in chemometrics, in the context of generalized linear regression based on a previous approach, Iteratively ReWeighted Partial Least Squares, i.e. IRWPLS (Marx, 1996). We compare our results with two-stage PLS (Nguyen and Rocke, 2002A; Nguyen and Rocke, 2002B) and other classifiers. We show that by phrasing the problem in a generalized linear model setting and by applying bias correction to the likelihood to avoid (quasi)separation, we often get lower classification error rates.

Model Evaluation Based on the Distribution of Estimated Absolute Prediction Error

The construction of a reliable, practically useful prediction rule for future response is heavily dependent on the "adequacy" of the fitted regression model. In this article, we consider the absolute prediction error, the expected value of the absolute difference between the future and predicted responses, as the model evaluation criterion. This prediction error is easier to interpret than the average squared error and is equivalent to the mis-classification error for the binary outcome. We show that the distributions of the apparent error and its cross-validation counterparts are approximately normal even under a misspecified fitted model. When the prediction rule is "unsmooth", the variance of the above normal distribution can be estimated well via a perturbation-resampling method. We also show how to approximate the distribution of the difference of the estimated prediction errors from two competing models. With two real examples, we demonstrate that the resulting interval estimates for prediction errors provide much more information about model adequacy than the point estimates alone.