Methods Inf Med 2016; 55(06): 557-563 DOI: 10.3414/ME16-01-0055
Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH
Ensemble Pruning for Glaucoma Detection in an Unbalanced Data Set[*]
Werner Adler
1
Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
,
Olaf Gefeller
1
Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
,
Asma Gul
2
Department of Statistics, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University, Peshawar, Pakistan
,
Folkert K. Horn
3
Department of Ophthalmology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
,
Zardad Khan
4
Department of Statistics, Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan, Pakistan
,
Berthold Lausen
5
Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, UK
› Author AffiliationsFunding The work on this article was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG), grant SCHM 2966 / 1– 2. We acknowledge support from grant number ES / L011859 / 1, from The Business and Local Government Data Research Centre, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council to provide researchers and analysts with secure data services.
Background: Random forests are successful classifier ensemble methods consisting of typically 100 to 1000 classification trees. Ensemble pruning techniques reduce the computational cost, especially the memory demand, of random forests by reducing the number of trees without relevant loss of performance or even with increased perfor -mance of the sub-ensemble. The application to the problem of an early detection of glaucoma, a severe eye disease with low prevalence, based on topographical measurements of the eye background faces specific challenges.
Objectives: We examine the performance of ensemble pruning strategies for glaucoma detection in an unbalanced data situation.
Methods: The data set consists of 102 topo-graphical features of the eye background of 254 healthy controls and 55 glaucoma patients. We compare the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and the Brier score on the total data set, in the majority class, and in the minority class of pruned random forest ensembles obtained with strategies based on the prediction accuracy of greedily grown sub-ensembles, the uncertainty weighted accuracy, and the similarity between single trees. To validate the findings and to examine the influence of the prevalence of glaucoma in the data set, we additionally perform a simulation study with lower prevalences of glaucoma.
Results: In glaucoma classification all three pruning strategies lead to improved AUC and smaller Brier scores on the total data set with sub-ensembles as small as 30 to 80 trees compared to the classification results obtained with the full ensemble consisting of 1000 trees. In the simulation study, we were able to show that the prevalence of glaucoma is a critical factor and lower prevalence decreases the performance of our pruning strategies.
Conclusions: The memory demand for glaucoma classification in an unbalanced data situation based on random forests could effectively be reduced by the application of pruning strategies without loss of perfor -mance in a population with increased risk of glaucoma.
Keywords
Ensemble pruning -
glaucoma -
random forest -
unbalanced data
2
Mayr A,
Binder H,
Gefeller O,
Schmid M.
The evolution of boosting algorithms. From machine learning to statistical modelling. Methods Inf Med 2014; 53 (Suppl. 06) 419-427.
4
Krogh A,
Vedelsby J.
Neural network ensembles, cross validation, and active learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1995
9
Kulkarni VY,
Sinha PK.
Pruning of random forest classifiers: a survey and future directions. Data Science & Engineering (ICDSE), 2012 International Conference on 2012; 64-68.
10
Tsoumakas G,
Partalas I,
Vlahavas I.
An ensemble pruning primer. In:
Okun O,
Valentini G.
editors.
Applications of supervised and unsupervised ensemble methods. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2009. p. 1-13.
11
Bhowan U,
Johnston M,
Zhang M.
Ensemble learning and pruning in multi-objective genetic programming for classification with unbalanced data. In:
Wang D,
Reynolds M.
editors.
Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI’11). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 192-202.
15
Gatnar E.
A diversity measure for tree-based classifier ensembles. In:
Baier D,
Decker R,
Schmidt-Thieme L.
editors.
Data Analysis and Decision Support. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2005. p. 30-38.
16
Kuncheva LI,
Whitaker CJ.
Measures of diversity in classifier ensembles and their relationship with the ensemble accuracy. Machine Learning 2003; 51 (Suppl. 02) 181-207.
17
Miglio R,
Soffritti G.
The comparison between classification trees through proximity measures. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 2004; 45 (Suppl. 03) 577-593.
18
Norsida H,
Bakri M,
Norwati M,
Rizam ABM.
Similarity measure exercise for classification trees based on the classification path. Applied Mathematics and Computational Intelligence 2012; 1: 33-41.
20
Brown G,
Kuncheva LI.
“Good” and “bad” diversity in majority vote ensembles. In:
Kittler J,
Roli F.
editors.
Multiple classifier systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2000. p. 124-133.
21
Gul A,
Perperoglou A,
Khan Z,
Mahmoud O,
Miftahuddin M,
Adler W.
et al.
Ensemble of a subset of kNN classifiers. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification 2016; 1-14.
22
Khan Z,
Gul A,
Perperoglou A,
Miftahuddin M,
Mahmoud O,
Adler W.
et al.
An ensemble of optimal trees for class membership probability estimation. Analysis of Large and Complex Data, European Conference on Data Analysis. July 2014. Bremen: Springer; in press.
23
Partalas I,
Tsoumakas G,
Vlahavas I.
An ensemble uncertainty aware measure for directed hill climbing ensemble pruning. Machine Learning 2010; 81: 257-282.
26
Horn FK,
Lämmer R,
Mardin CY,
Jünemann AG,
Michelson G,
Lausen B.
et al.
Combined evaluation of frequency doubling technology perimetry and scanning laser ophthalmoscopy for glaucoma detection using automated classification. Journal of Glaucoma 2012; 21 (Suppl. 01) 27-34.
31
Giacinto G,
Roli F,
Fumera G.
Design of effective multiple classifier systems by clustering of classifiers. 15th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, ICPR 2000; 160-163.
32
Lu Z,
Wu X,
Zhu X,
Bongard J.
Ensemble Pruning via Individual Contribution Ordering. Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIgKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 2010
33
Martinez-Munoz G,
Hernandez-Lobato D,
Suarez A.
An Analysis of Ensemble Pruning Techniques Based on Ordered Aggregation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2009; 31 (Suppl. 02) 245-259.
34
Tham Y,
Li X,
Wong T,
Quigley H,
Aung T,
Cheng C.
Global Prevalence of Glaucoma and Projections of Glaucoma Burden through 2040. Ophthalmology 2014; 121 (Suppl. 11) 2081-2090.
35
Todd A,
Müller A,
Rait J,
Keeffe J,
Taylor H,
Mukesh B.
Performance of Community-Based Glaucoma Screening Using Frequency Doubling Technology and Heidelberg Retinal Tomography. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2005; 12 (Suppl. 03) 167-178.
36
Schwing AG,
Zach C,
Zheng Y,
Pollefeys M.
Adaptive random forest – How many “experts” to ask before making a decision?. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 2011 IEEE Conference on 2011; 1377-1384.
37
Krawczyk B,
Schaefer G.
An improved ensemble approach for imbalanced classification problems. Applied Computational Intelligence and Informatica (SACI), 2013 IEEE 8th International Symposium on. 2013; 423-426.