BackgroundTo evaluate binary classifications and their confusion matrices, scientific researchers can employ several statistical rates, accordingly to the goal of the experiment they are investigating. Despite being a crucial issue in machine learning, no widespread consensus has been reached on a unified elective chosen measure yet. Accuracy and F1 score computed on confusion matrices have been (and still are) among the most popular adopted metrics in binary classification tasks. However, these statistical measures can dangerously show overoptimistic inflated results, especially on imbalanced datasets.ResultsThe Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), instead, is a more reliable statistical rate which produces a high score only if the prediction obtained good results in all of the four confusion matrix categories (true positives, false negatives, true negatives, and false positives), proportionally both to the size of positive elements and the size of negative elements in the dataset.ConclusionsIn this article, we show how MCC produces a more informative and truthful score in evaluating binary classifications than accuracy and F1 score, by first explaining the mathematical properties, and then the asset of MCC in six synthetic use cases and in a real genomics scenario. We believe that the Matthews correlation coefficient should be preferred to accuracy and F1 score in evaluating binary classification tasks by all scientific communities.

Machine learning has become a pivotal tool for many projects in computational biology, bioinformatics, and health informatics. Nevertheless, beginners and biomedical researchers often do not have enough experience to run a data mining project effectively, and therefore can follow incorrect practices, that may lead to common mistakes or over-optimistic results. With this review, we present ten quick tips to take advantage of machine learning in any computational biology context, by avoiding some common errors that we observed hundreds of times in multiple bioinformatics projects. We believe our ten suggestions can strongly help any machine learning practitioner to carry on a successful project in computational biology and related sciences.

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 R2) and the symmetric mean absolute percentage error (SMAPE). After showing their mathematical properties, we report a comparison between R2 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.

Evaluating binary classifications is a pivotal task in statistics and machine learning, because it can influence decisions in multiple areas, including for example prognosis or therapies of patients in critical conditions. The scientific community has not agreed on a general-purpose statistical indicator for evaluating two-class confusion matrices (having true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives) yet, even if advantages of the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over accuracy and F1 score have already been shown.In this manuscript, we reaffirm that MCC is a robust metric that summarizes the classifier performance in a single value, if positive and negative cases are of equal importance. We compare MCC to other metrics which value positive and negative cases equally: balanced accuracy (BA), bookmaker informedness (BM), and markedness (MK). We explain the mathematical relationships between MCC and these indicators, then show some use cases and a bioinformatics scenario where these metrics disagree and where MCC generates a more informative response.Additionally, we describe three exceptions where BM can be more appropriate: analyzing classifications where dataset prevalence is unrepresentative, comparing classifiers on different datasets, and assessing the random guessing level of a classifier. Except in these cases, we believe that MCC is the most informative among the single metrics discussed, and suggest it as standard measure for scientists of all fields. A Matthews correlation coefficient close to +1, in fact, means having high values for all the other confusion matrix metrics. The same cannot be said for balanced accuracy, markedness, bookmaker informedness, accuracy and F1 score.

No abstract

Background: Cardiovascular diseases kill approximately 17 million people globally every year, and they mainly exhibit as myocardial infarctions and heart failures. Heart failure (HF) occurs when the heart cannot pump enough blood to meet the needs of the body. Available electronic medical records of patients quantify symptoms, body features, and clinical laboratory test values, which can be used to perform biostatistics analysis aimed at highlighting patterns and correlations otherwise undetectable by medical doctors. Machine learning, in particular, can predict patients' survival from their data and can individuate the most important features among those included in their medical records. Methods: In this paper, we analyze a dataset of 299 patients with heart failure collected in 2015. We apply several machine learning classifiers to both predict the patients survival, and rank the features corresponding to the most important risk factors. We also perform an alternative feature ranking analysis by employing traditional biostatistics tests, and compare these results with those provided by the machine learning algorithms. Since both feature ranking approaches clearly identify serum creatinine and ejection fraction as the two most relevant features, we then build the machine learning survival prediction models on these two factors alone. Results: Our results of these two-feature models show not only that serum creatinine and ejection fraction are sufficient to predict survival of heart failure patients from medical records, but also that using these two features alone can lead to more accurate predictions than using the original dataset features in its entirety. We also carry out an analysis including the follow-up month of each patient: even in this case, serum creatinine and ejection fraction are the most predictive clinical features of the dataset, and are sufficient to predict patients' survival. Conclusions: This discovery has the potential to impact on clinical practice, becoming a new supporting tool for physicians when predicting if a heart failure patient will survive or not. Indeed, medical doctors aiming at understanding if a patient will survive after heart failure may focus mainly on serum creatinine and ejection fraction.

The annotation of genomic information is a major challenge in biology and bioinformatics. Existing databases of known gene functions are incomplete and prone to errors, and the bimolecular experiments needed to improve these databases are slow and costly. While computational methods are not a substitute for experimental verification, they can help in two ways: algorithms can aid in the curation of gene annotations by automatically suggesting inaccuracies, and they can predict previously-unidentified gene functions, accelerating the rate of gene function discovery. In this work, we develop an algorithm that achieves both goals using deep autoencoder neural networks. With experiments on gene annotation data from the Gene Ontology project, we show that deep autoencoder networks achieve better performance than other standard machine learning methods, including the popular truncated singular value decomposition.

Even if measuring the outcome of binary classifications is a pivotal task in machine learning and statistics, no consensus has been reached yet about which statistical rate to employ to this end. In the last century, the computer science and statistics communities have introduced several scores summing up the correctness of the predictions with respect to the ground truth values. Among these scores, the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) was shown to have several advantages over confusion entropy, accuracy, F 1 score, balanced accuracy, bookmaker informedness, markedness, and diagnostic odds ratio: MCC, in fact, produces a high score only if the majority of the predicted negative data instances and the majority of the positive data instances are correct, and therefore it results being very trustworthy on imbalanced datasets. In this study, we compare MCC with two other popular scores: Cohen's Kappa, a metric that originated in social sciences, and the Brier score, a strictly proper scoring function which emerged in weather forecasting studies. After explaining the mathematical properties and the relationships between MCC and each of these two rates, we report some use cases where these scores generate different values, which lead to discordant outcomes, where MCC provides a more truthful and informative result. We highlight the reasons why it is more advisable to use MCC rather that Cohen's Kappa and the Brier score to evaluate binary classifications.