↓ Skip to main content

Improving accuracy for cancer classification with a new algorithm for genes selection

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improving accuracy for cancer classification with a new algorithm for genes selection
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-13-298
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hongyan Zhang, Haiyan Wang, Zhijun Dai, Ming-shun Chen, Zheming Yuan

Abstract

Even though the classification of cancer tissue samples based on gene expression data has advanced considerably in recent years, it faces great challenges to improve accuracy. One of the challenges is to establish an effective method that can select a parsimonious set of relevant genes. So far, most methods for gene selection in literature focus on screening individual or pairs of genes without considering the possible interactions among genes. Here we introduce a new computational method named the Binary Matrix Shuffling Filter (BMSF). It not only overcomes the difficulty associated with the search schemes of traditional wrapper methods and overfitting problem in large dimensional search space but also takes potential gene interactions into account during gene selection. This method, coupled with Support Vector Machine (SVM) for implementation, often selects very small number of genes for easy model interpretability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
Ukraine 1 1%
France 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 70 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 7 9%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 17%
Computer Science 12 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Engineering 6 8%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 18 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2012.
All research outputs
#13,674,872
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,439
of 7,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,723
of 179,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#59
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 179,099 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.