Back

Feature selection for the classification of fall-risk in older subjects: a combinational approach using static force-plate measures

O'Reilly, D.

2019-10-17 bioinformatics
10.1101/807818 bioRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionFeature selection prevents over-fitting in predictive models. This study aimed to present an effective feature selection method that leads to a reliable classification of fall-risk in older subjects using static force-platform data across four conditions only.\n\nMethod528 features were generated from a publicly available dataset of force-plate signals from 45 low-risk and 28 high-risk subjects. Subjects were classified as high- or low-risk if they recorded [≥]1 falls in the prior 12 months and/or were rated as high-risk on the FES. The feature selection protocol included SVM-RFE, GA and ReliefF and finally SAFE. Several machine-learning models were then used to evaluate classification performance.\n\nResults67 features were identified after the three-fold process which was further reduced to 18 features after SAFE. The MLP achieved the highest average classification accuracy of 80%. All classification models evaluating this final subset displayed high variance across all performance metrics, especially in terms of sensitivity to high-risk subjects.\n\nInterpretationAn optimal feature set of static force-plate measures was insufficient in creating a reliable classifier of fall-risk. This was due potentially to the limited information about fall-risk that could be provided by such measures leading to under-fitting/over-fitting being unavoidable and appeared to be centered around an insensitivity to high-risk subjects.\n\nConclusionStatic stability measures have shown some usability in fall-risk classification however feature sets limited to such measures are inadequately sensitive to high-risk subjects. The utilized feature selection methods demonstrated their ability to identify relevant stability measures and could be used successfully on dynamic measures.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.