Cross-validation limitations

Traditional electrophoresis and capillary electrophoresis are competitive techniques as both can be used for the analysis of similar types of samples. On the other hand, whereas HPLC and GC are complementary techniques since they are generally applicable to different sample types, HPLC and CE are more competitive with each other since they are applicable to many of the same types of samples. Yet, they exhibit different selec-tivities and thus are very suitable for cross-validation studies. CE is well suited for analysis of both polar and nonpolar compounds, i.e. water-soluble and water-insoluble compounds. CE may separate compounds that have been traditionally difficult to handle by HPLC (e.g. polar substances, large molecules, limited size samples). 

Both the determination of the effective number of scatterers and the associated rescaling of variances are still in progress within BUSTER. The value of n at the moment is fixed by the user at input preparation time for charge density studies, variances are also kept fixed and set equal to the observational c2. An approximate optimal n can be determined empirically by means of several test runs on synthetic data, monitoring the rms deviation of the final density from the reference model density (see below). This is of course only feasible when using synthetic data, for which the perfect answer is known. We plan to overcome this limitation in the future by means of cross-validation methods. 

In PAT, one is often faced with the task of building, optimizing, evaluating, and deploying a model based on a limited set of calibration data. In such a situation, one can use model validation and cross-validation techniques to perform two of these functions namely to optimize the model by determining the optimal model complexity and to perform preliminary evaluation of the model s performance before it is deployed. There are several validation methods that are commonly used in PAT applications, and some of these are discussed below. 

An important aspect of variable selection that is often overlooked is the hazard brought about through the use of cross-validation for two quite different purposes namely (1) as an optimization criterion for variable selection and other model optimization tasks (including selection of the optimal number of PLS LVs or PCR PCs) and (2) as an assessment of the quality of the final model built using all samples. In this case, one can get highly optimistic estimates of a model s performance, because the same criterion is used to both optimize and evaluate the model. As a result, when doing variable selection, especially with a limited number of calibration samples, it is advisable to do an additional outer loop cross-validation across the entire model... 

Often the number of samples for calibration is limited and it is not possible to split the data into a calibration set and a validation set containing representative samples that are representative enough for calibration and for validation. As we want a satisfactory model that predicts future samples well, we should include as many different samples in the calibration set as possible. This leads us to the severe problem that we do not have samples for the validation set. Such a problem could be solved if we were able to perform calibration with the whole set of samples and validation as well (without predicting the same samples that we have used to calculate the model). There are different options but, roughly speaking, most of them can be classified under the generic term "cross-validation . More advanced discussions can be found elsewhere [31-33]. 

A simple and classical method is Wold s criterion [39], which resembles the well-known F-test, defined as the ratio between two successive values of PRESS (obtained by cross-validation). The optimum dimensionality is set as the number of factors for which the ratio does not exceeds unity (at that moment the residual error for a model containing A components becomes larger than that for a model with only A - 1 components). The adjusted Wold s criterion limits the upper ratio to 0.90 or 0.95 [35]. Figure 4.17 depicts how this criterion behaves when applied to the calibration data set of the working example developed to determine Sb in natural waters. This plot shows that the third pair (formed by the third and fourth factors) yields a PRESS ratio that is slightly lower than one, so probably the best number of factors to be included in the model would be three or four. 

Although this approach is still used, it is undesirable for statistical reasons error calculations underestimate the true uncertainty associated with the equations (17, 21). A better approach is to use the equations developed for one set of lakes to infer chemistry values from counts of taxa from a second set of lakes (i.e., cross-validation). The extra time and effort required to develop the additional data for the test set is a major limitation to this approach. Computer-intensive techniques, such as jackknifing or bootstrapping, can produce error estimates from the original training set (53), without having to collect data for additional lakes. 

Model Validation Validation of the calibration model is crucial before prospective application. Two types of validation schemes can be adopted internal and external. Internal validation, or cross-validation, is used when the number of calibration samples is limited. In cross-validation, a small subset of calibration data is withheld from the model building step. After the model is tested on these validation spectra, a different subset of calibration data is withheld and the b vector is recalculated. Various strategies can be employed for grouping spectra for calibration and validation. For example, a single sample is withheld in a leave-one-out scheme, and the calibration and validation process is repeated as many times as the number of samples in the calibration data set. In general, leave- -out cross-validation can be implemented with n random samples chosen from a pool of calibration data. 

CM 18.1 to CM 18.3 were assessed in terms of their Cooper statistics, which define an upper limit to predictive performance. In addition, cross-validated Cooper statistics, which provide a more realistic indication of a model s capacity to predict the classifications of independent data, were obtained by applying the threefold cross-validation procedure to the best-sized CTs. In the threefold cross-validation procedure, the data set is randomly divided into three approximately equal parts, the CT is re-parameterized using two thirds of the data, and predicted classifications are made for the remaining third of the data. The cross-validated Cooper statistics are the mean values of the usual Cooper statistics, taken over the three iterations of the cross-validation procedure. The Cooper statistics for CM 18.1 to CM 18.3 are summarized in Table 18.6. 

The throughput of the methods is limited due to the sample preparation and tedious experimental set-up. It gives high quality data, which can be used for cross validation of methods and reference data. 

PCM modeling aims to find an empirical relation (a PCM equation or model) that describes the interaction activities of the biopolymer-molecule pairs as accurate as possible. To this end, various linear and nonlinear correlation methods can be used. Nonlinear methods have hitherto been used to only a limited extent. The method of prime choice has been partial least-squares projection to latent structures (PLS), which has been found to work very satisfactorily in PCM. PCA is also an important data-preprocessing tool in PCM modeling. Modeling includes statistical model-validation techniques such as cross validation, external prediction, and variable-selection and signal-correction methods to obtain statistically valid models. (For general overviews of modeling methods see [10]). 

With each QSAR, the following statistics are given the 95% confidence limits for each term in parentheses the correlation coefficient r between observed values of the dependent and the values predicted from the equation the squared correlation coefficient s the standard deviation defines the cross-validated (indication of the quality of the fit) and the F-values are given for... 

Calculate the cross-validated R (or q ) value (cf Equation 2.1). (i ) Repeat calculations fork = 2, 3,4,..., n. The upper limit of k is the total number of compounds in the data set however, the best value is found empirically between 1 and 5. The k that leads to the best value is chosen for the current kNN-QSAR model. 

To overcome this limitation, a cross-validation approach has been used (39). In that procedure, a portion of the database (e.g., 5%) is randomly selected and removed, and a model is developed from the remaining 95%. That model is challenged with the "tester set" (5%). That procedure is repeated 20 times, and the cumulative predictivity is determined. The final SAR model includes the complete database (i.e., 100%). Because the predictive performance is a function of the size of the database, the performance of the final model will be better than that based on 95% of the data. When,... 

Programs of human research in eastern Europe, China, and India have illustrated positive effects of seaberry therapeutic applications in limited clinical trials. Mainstream Western science, on the other hand, appears to be more skeptical, as the results are not typically cross-validated by studies in first-world clinical research countries acceptable to the FDA... 

The importance of validation has been generally acknowledged, and most QSAR models in the literature are validated either by cross validation or external test sets [13,46]. Model validation for classification models is typically specified by statistical quality measures of overall quality such as sensitivity, specificity, false positives, false negatives, and overall prediction. Unfortunately, it is often impossible to specify accuracy and prediction confidence for individual unknown chemicals, specifically those unknown chemicals with structures requiring the model to extend to, or beyond, the limits of chemistry space defined by the training set. 

Since the descriptor selection and model development are integrated, cross validation avoids descriptor selection bias and is more useful than the external validation in assessing a model s limitations. 

---