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.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 2,447 |
| 2000-2009 | 2,885 |
| 2010-2019 | 5,278 |
| 2020 onward | 2,368 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 197 | 1.5% |
| Meta-analyses | 14 | 0.1% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 120 | 0.9% |
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 / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discriminant analysis of principal components: a new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations | 2010 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 2,976 | cc by PMID 20950446 · DOI · PMC2973851 |
| Sparse PLS discriminant analysis: biologically relevant feature selection and graphical displays for multiclass problems | 2011 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 736 | cc by PMID 21693065 · DOI · PMC3133555 |
| So you think you can PLS-DA? | 2020 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 257 | cc by PMID 33297937 · DOI · PMC7724830 |
| Advancing prostate cancer detection: a comparative analysis of PCLDA-SVM and PCLDA-KNN classifiers for enhanced diagnostic accuracy | 2023 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 5 | cc by PMID 37612436 · DOI · PMC10447543 |
Discriminant analysis of principal components: a new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations [1]
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]
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]
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]
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]
- Research article Assessing serial irregularity and its implications for health [6]
- Research article The influence of a priori grouping on inference of genetic clusters: simulation study and literature review of the DAPC method [7]
- Research article Implementation of chemometrics for quality control and authentication of meat and meat products [8]
- Research article Discriminant analysis [9]
- Research article Biostatistics 303. Discriminant analysis [10]
References
- 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
- 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
- Ruiz-Perez D, Guan H, Madhivanan P, Mathee K, Narasimhan G. So you think you can PLS-DA?. . 2020. PMID 33297937 · DOI · PMC7724830
- 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
- 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
- Pincus SM. Assessing serial irregularity and its implications for health. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001. PMID 11797860 · DOI
- 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
- 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
- Solberg HE. Discriminant analysis. CRC Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 1978. PMID 401370 · DOI
- 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.