This paper presents the top 10 data mining algorithms identified by the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) in December 2006: C4.5, k-Means, SVM, Apriori, EM, PageRank, AdaBoost, kNN, Naive Bayes, and CART. These top 10 algorithms are among the most influential data mining algorithms in the research community. With each algorithm, we provide a description of the algorithm, discuss the impact of the algorithm, and review current and further research on the algorithm. These 10 algorithms cover classification,

Data mining is the discovery of interesting, unexpected or valuable structures in large datasets. As such, it has two rather different aspects. One of these concerns large-scale, 'global' structures, and the aim is to model the shapes, or features of the shapes, of distributions. The other concerns small-scale, 'local' structures, and the aim is to detect these anomalies and decide if they are real or chance occurrences. In the context of signal detection in the pharmaceutical sector, most interest lies in the second of the above two aspects; however, signal detection occurs relative to an assumed background model, therefore, some discussion of the first aspect is also necessary. This paper gives a lightning overview of data mining and its relation to statistics, with particular emphasis on tools for the detection of adverse drug reactions.

No abstract

The area under the ROC curve (AUC) is a very widely used measure of performance for classification and diagnostic rules. It has the appealing property of being objective, requiring no subjective input from the user. On the other hand, the AUC has disadvantages, some of which are well known. For example, the AUC can give potentially misleading results if ROC curves cross. However, the AUC also has a much more serious deficiency, and one which appears not to have been previously recognised. This is that it is fundamentally incoherent in terms of misclassification costs: the AUC uses different misclassification cost distributions for different classifiers. This means that using the AUC is equivalent to using different metrics to evaluate different classification rules. It is equivalent to saying that, using one classifier, misclassifying a class 1 point is p times as serious as misclassifying a class 0 point, but, using another classifier, misclassifying a class 1 point is P times as serious, where p = P . This is nonsensical because the relative severities of different kinds of misclassifications of individual points is a property of the problem, not the classifiers which happen to have been chosen. This property is explored in detail, and a simple valid alternative to the AUC is proposed.