Cross Validated is a question and answer site for people interested in statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, and data visualization. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This is in followup to a previous question. here :

Neural network model to predict treatment outcome

and might be considered to refer to a different aspect of this question:

Application of machine learning techniques in small sample clinical studies

Thanks to Zach who suggested reposting.

I've put some fairly serious reading in now on CART, randomForest, Neural Networks and machine learning in general, learned about WEKA and the R packages, seen and followed the Stanford engineering lectures , I'm 3 chapters into Hastie. Given the kind of data we see regularly in clinically oriented research - loads of clinical parameters + loads of biochemical parameters + pen and paper test data +/- neuroimaging data with smallish numbers, I get the feeling that I'm missing something. I'm not regularly reading about ML techniques being applied in the research literature. My question is: have I just latched on to something which is dubious and therefore regarded with justified suspicion by researching clinicians and biostatisticians who are well aware of it, or are these techniques genuinely overlooked or feared outside of "business analytics"? What keeps it "niche"?

share|improve this question
I think the problem here is more related to what journals you read than anything else. Machine learning is quite heavily applied in modern translational medicine, provided that black-box models are acceptable for the task. – Marc Claesen Mar 4 '15 at 15:38
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Machine learning techniques often lack interpretability. Also, they tend to be rather crude from a statistical point of view -- e.g. neural networks mak no assumptions about the input data. I have a feeling that lots of people (especially if they have a strong statistical background) look down on them.

share|improve this answer
Yeah, I think I got that. However, from my point of view statistical methods are neither pure nor dirty, just the application of logic to data. If you want a pill to cure something, then you need to understand the interrelationships and take that to the molecular biology lab. However, If you just want to make a prediction using black box (NN/RF) or decision (CART) methods, what's the problem? You might even gain insight. Is it any deeper than snobbery? – rosser Dec 4 '11 at 19:26
While interpretability is certainly nice, I'm not sure whether I would consult a doctor who knows what he's doing and has a success rate of 60% versus a doctor who has no clue but has success rate of 100% ;) – blubb Dec 5 '11 at 13:06
You might be interested in Leo Breiman's 'Statistical Modeling - The two cultures', where this is covered in depth( Furthermore, there are reasons for this approach -- if you want humans to interprete things, for example. – bayerj Dec 5 '11 at 21:28
@blubb I would consult a doctor that has no clue but 100% success rate with a confidence interval [98,100] :) – Simone Dec 11 '12 at 10:39

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.