↓ Skip to main content

Network or regression-based methods for disease discrimination: a comparison study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
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
Network or regression-based methods for disease discrimination: a comparison study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0207-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoshuai Zhang, Zhongshang Yuan, Jiadong Ji, Hongkai Li, Fuzhong Xue

Abstract

In stark contrast to network-centric view for complex disease, regression-based methods are preferred in disease prediction, especially for epidemiologists and clinical professionals. It remains a controversy whether the network-based methods have advantageous performance than regression-based methods, and to what extent do they outperform. Simulations under different scenarios (the input variables are independent or in network relationship) as well as an application were conducted to assess the prediction performance of four typical methods including Bayesian network, neural network, logistic regression and regression splines. The simulation results reveal that Bayesian network showed a better performance when the variables were in a network relationship or in a chain structure. For the special wheel network structure, logistic regression had a considerable performance compared to others. Further application on GWAS of leprosy show Bayesian network still outperforms other methods. Although regression-based methods are still popular and widely used, network-based approaches should be paid more attention, since they capture the complex relationship between variables.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Master 6 15%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 14 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 17 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 August 2016.
All research outputs
#17,812,737
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,685
of 2,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,996
of 343,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#40
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,021 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 343,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.