Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Clinical Research›Discriminant Analysis
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Discriminant Analysis

Clinical Research · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 4 min read

A statistical analytic technique used with discrete dependent variables, concerned with separating sets of observed values and allocating new values.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (839 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

A statistical analytic technique used with discrete dependent variables, concerned with separating sets of observed values and allocating new values. It is sometimes used instead of regression analysis.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Analyses, Discriminant; Analysis, Discriminant; Discriminant Analyses.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Statistics as Topic

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 12,978 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Discriminant Analysis” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 2,368 of them (18.2%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 5,278 records.

Reviews account for 197 records (1.5%) and meta-analyses for 14. Randomized controlled trials number 120 (0.9%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 2,447 records; 2000-2009: 2,885 records; 2010-2019: 5,278 records; 2020 onward: 2,368 records2,447through 19992,8852000-20095,2782010-20192,3682020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19992,447
2000-20092,885
2010-20195,278
2020 onward2,368
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 1.5 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.1 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 0.9 percentReviews1.5% (197)Meta-analyses0.1% (14)Randomized controlled trials0.9% (120)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 12,978 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews1971.5%
Meta-analyses140.1%
Randomized controlled trials1200.9%

Method: PubMed query "Discriminant Analysis"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in clinical research

Research methods determine how much a result can be trusted. Randomized trials guard against confounding, systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine many studies, and observational designs are valuable but can show only association. Reporting standards, trial registration and pre-specified outcomes reduce bias. When reading about a method, ask what problem it is designed to solve and which problems it does not solve.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Discriminant analysis of principal components: a new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations
Jombart T, Devillard S, Balloux F
2010Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
2,976cc by
PMID 20950446 · DOI · PMC2973851
Sparse PLS discriminant analysis: biologically relevant feature selection and graphical displays for multiclass problems
Lê Cao KA, Boitard S, Besse P
2011Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
736cc by
PMID 21693065 · DOI · PMC3133555
So you think you can PLS-DA?
Ruiz-Perez D, Guan H, Madhivanan P, Mathee K, Narasimhan G
2020Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
257cc by
PMID 33297937 · DOI · PMC7724830
Advancing prostate cancer detection: a comparative analysis of PCLDA-SVM and PCLDA-KNN classifiers for enhanced diagnostic accuracy
Dubey P, Kumar S
2023Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
5cc by
PMID 37612436 · DOI · PMC10447543

Discriminant analysis of principal components: a new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations [1]

Research article Jombart T, Devillard S, Balloux F · · 2010 · cited 2,976 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundThe dramatic progress in sequencing technologies offers unprecedented prospects for deciphering the organization of natural populations in space and time.
Closing excerpt
Our approach is also faster than Bayesian clustering algorithms by several orders of magnitude, and may be applicable to a wider range of datasets.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (274 words)

BackgroundThe dramatic progress in sequencing technologies offers unprecedented prospects for deciphering the organization of natural populations in space and time. However, the size of the datasets generated also poses some daunting challenges. In particular, Bayesian clustering algorithms based on pre-defined population genetics models such as the STRUCTURE or BAPS software may not be able to cope with this unprecedented amount of data. Thus, there is a need for less computer-intensive approaches. Multivariate analyses seem particularly appealing as they are specifically devoted to extracting information from large datasets. Unfortunately, currently available multivariate methods still lack some essential features needed to study the genetic structure of natural populations.ResultsWe introduce the Discriminant Analysis of Principal Components (DAPC), a multivariate method designed to identify and describe clusters of genetically related individuals. When group priors are lacking, DAPC uses sequential K-means and model selection to infer genetic clusters. Our approach allows extracting rich information from genetic data, providing assignment of individuals to groups, a visual assessment of between-population differentiation, and contribution of individual alleles to population structuring. We evaluate the performance of our method using simulated data, which were also analyzed using STRUCTURE as a benchmark. Additionally, we illustrate the method by analyzing microsatellite polymorphism in worldwide human populations and hemagglutinin gene sequence variation in seasonal influenza.ConclusionsAnalysis of simulated data revealed that our approach performs generally better than STRUCTURE at characterizing population subdivision. The tools implemented in DAPC for the identification of clusters and graphical representation of between-group structures allow to unravel complex population structures. Our approach is also faster than Bayesian clustering algorithms by several orders of magnitude, and may be applicable to a wider range of datasets.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 20950446 · DOI · PMC2973851

Sparse PLS discriminant analysis: biologically relevant feature selection and graphical displays for multiclass problems [2]

Research article Lê Cao KA, Boitard S, Besse P · · 2011 · cited 736 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundVariable selection on high throughput biological data, such as gene expression or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), becomes inevitable to select relevant information and, therefore, to better characterize diseases or assess genetic structure.
Closing excerpt
sPLS-DA is available in the R package mixOmics, which is dedicated to the analysis of large biological data sets.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (178 words)

BackgroundVariable selection on high throughput biological data, such as gene expression or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), becomes inevitable to select relevant information and, therefore, to better characterize diseases or assess genetic structure. There are different ways to perform variable selection in large data sets. Statistical tests are commonly used to identify differentially expressed features for explanatory purposes, whereas Machine Learning wrapper approaches can be used for predictive purposes. In the case of multiple highly correlated variables, another option is to use multivariate exploratory approaches to give more insight into cell biology, biological pathways or complex traits.ResultsA simple extension of a sparse PLS exploratory approach is proposed to perform variable selection in a multiclass classification framework.ConclusionssPLS-DA has a classification performance similar to other wrapper or sparse discriminant analysis approaches on public microarray and SNP data sets. More importantly, sPLS-DA is clearly competitive in terms of computational efficiency and superior in terms of interpretability of the results via valuable graphical outputs. sPLS-DA is available in the R package mixOmics, which is dedicated to the analysis of large biological data sets.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 21693065 · DOI · PMC3133555

So you think you can PLS-DA? [3]

Research article Ruiz-Perez D, Guan H, Madhivanan P, Mathee K, Narasimhan G · · 2020 · cited 257 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundPartial Least-Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) is a popular machine learning tool that is gaining increasing attention as a useful feature selector and classifier.
Closing excerpt
edu/plsda CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of PLS-DA in comparison with PCA for different underlying data models.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (197 words)

BackgroundPartial Least-Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) is a popular machine learning tool that is gaining increasing attention as a useful feature selector and classifier. In an effort to understand its strengths and weaknesses, we performed a series of experiments with synthetic data and compared its performance to its close relative from which it was initially invented, namely Principal Component Analysis (PCA).ResultsWe demonstrate that even though PCA ignores the information regarding the class labels of the samples, this unsupervised tool can be remarkably effective as a feature selector. In some cases, it outperforms PLS-DA, which is made aware of the class labels in its input. Our experiments range from looking at the signal-to-noise ratio in the feature selection task, to considering many practical distributions and models encountered when analyzing bioinformatics and clinical data. Other methods were also evaluated. Finally, we analyzed an interesting data set from 396 vaginal microbiome samples where the ground truth for the feature selection was available. All the 3D figures shown in this paper as well as the supplementary ones can be viewed interactively at http://biorg.cs.fiu.edu/plsda CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of PLS-DA in comparison with PCA for different underlying data models.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 33297937 · DOI · PMC7724830

Advancing prostate cancer detection: a comparative analysis of PCLDA-SVM and PCLDA-KNN classifiers for enhanced diagnostic accuracy [4]

Research article Dubey P, Kumar S · · 2023 · cited 5 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
This investigation aimed to assess the effectiveness of different classification models in diagnosing prostate cancer using a screening dataset obtained from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Data Access System.
Closing excerpt
Both models, however, showed promising results, suggesting the potential of these classifiers in prostate cancer diagnosis.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (190 words)

This investigation aimed to assess the effectiveness of different classification models in diagnosing prostate cancer using a screening dataset obtained from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Data Access System. The dataset was first reduced using the PCLDA method, which combines Principal Component Analysis and Linear Discriminant Analysis. Two classifiers, Support Vector Machine (SVM) and k-Nearest Neighbour (KNN), were then applied to compare their performance. The results showed that the PCLDA-SVM model achieved an impressive accuracy rate of 97.99%, with a precision of 0.92, sensitivity of 92.83%, specificity of 97.65%, and F1 score of 0.93. Additionally, it demonstrated a low error rate of 0.016 and a Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) and Kappa coefficient of 0.946. On the other hand, the PCLDA-KNN model also performed well, achieving an accuracy of 97.8%, precision of 0.93, sensitivity of 93.39%, specificity of 97.86%, an F1 score of 0.92, a high MCC and Kappa coefficient of 0.98, and an error rate of 0.006. In conclusion, the PCLDA-SVM method exhibited improved efficacy in diagnosing prostate cancer compared to the PCLDA-KNN model. Both models, however, showed promising results, suggesting the potential of these classifiers in prostate cancer diagnosis.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 37612436 · DOI · PMC10447543

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article The use of principal component analysis and discriminant analysis in differential sensing routines [5]
    Stewart S, Ivy MA, Anslyn EV · Chem Soc Rev · 2014 · cited 209 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Assessing serial irregularity and its implications for health [6]
    Pincus SM · Ann N Y Acad Sci · 2001 · cited 190 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article The influence of a priori grouping on inference of genetic clusters: simulation study and literature review of the DAPC method [7]
    Miller JM, Cullingham CI, Peery RM · Heredity (Edinb) · 2020 · cited 94 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Implementation of chemometrics for quality control and authentication of meat and meat products [8]
    Arvanitoyannis IS, van Houwelingen-Koukaliaroglou M · Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr · 2003 · cited 48 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Discriminant analysis [9]
    Solberg HE · CRC Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci · 1978 · cited 40 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Biostatistics 303. Discriminant analysis [10]
    Chan YH · Singapore Med J · 2005 · cited 24 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Jombart T, Devillard S, Balloux F. Discriminant analysis of principal components: a new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. . 2010. PMID 20950446 · DOI · PMC2973851
  2. Lê Cao KA, Boitard S, Besse P. Sparse PLS discriminant analysis: biologically relevant feature selection and graphical displays for multiclass problems. . 2011. PMID 21693065 · DOI · PMC3133555
  3. Ruiz-Perez D, Guan H, Madhivanan P, Mathee K, Narasimhan G. So you think you can PLS-DA?. . 2020. PMID 33297937 · DOI · PMC7724830
  4. Dubey P, Kumar S. Advancing prostate cancer detection: a comparative analysis of PCLDA-SVM and PCLDA-KNN classifiers for enhanced diagnostic accuracy. . 2023. PMID 37612436 · DOI · PMC10447543
  5. Stewart S, Ivy MA, Anslyn EV. The use of principal component analysis and discriminant analysis in differential sensing routines. Chem Soc Rev. 2014. PMID 23995750 · DOI
  6. Pincus SM. Assessing serial irregularity and its implications for health. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001. PMID 11797860 · DOI
  7. Miller JM, Cullingham CI, Peery RM. The influence of a priori grouping on inference of genetic clusters: simulation study and literature review of the DAPC method. Heredity (Edinb). 2020. PMID 32753664 · DOI · PMC7553915
  8. Arvanitoyannis IS, van Houwelingen-Koukaliaroglou M. Implementation of chemometrics for quality control and authentication of meat and meat products. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2003. PMID 12705641 · DOI
  9. Solberg HE. Discriminant analysis. CRC Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 1978. PMID 401370 · DOI
  10. Chan YH. Biostatistics 303. Discriminant analysis. Singapore Med J. 2005. PMID 15678285

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Multivariate AnalysisClinical Research
  • Survival AnalysisClinical Research
  • Cluster AnalysisClinical Research
  • Spatial AnalysisClinical Research
  • ROC CurveClinical Research
  • Mediation AnalysisClinical Research

All 98 articles in Clinical Research →

At a glance

12,978
PubMed records on this heading
18%
published since 2020
197
review articles
120
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Multivariate AnalysisClinical Research
  • Survival AnalysisClinical Research
  • Cluster AnalysisClinical Research
  • Spatial AnalysisClinical Research
  • ROC CurveClinical Research

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support