↓ Skip to main content

Fusing literature and full network data improves disease similarity computation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Fusing literature and full network data improves disease similarity computation
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1205-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ping Li, Yaling Nie, Jingkai Yu

Abstract

Identifying relatedness among diseases could help deepen understanding for the underlying pathogenic mechanisms of diseases, and facilitate drug repositioning projects. A number of methods for computing disease similarity had been developed; however, none of them were designed to utilize information of the entire protein interaction network, using instead only those interactions involving disease causing genes. Most of previously published methods required gene-disease association data, unfortunately, many diseases still have very few or no associated genes, which impeded broad adoption of those methods. In this study, we propose a new method (MedNetSim) for computing disease similarity by integrating medical literature and protein interaction network. MedNetSim consists of a network-based method (NetSim), which employs the entire protein interaction network, and a MEDLINE-based method (MedSim), which computes disease similarity by mining the biomedical literature. Among function-based methods, NetSim achieved the best performance. Its average AUC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) reached 95.2 %. MedSim, whose performance was even comparable to some function-based methods, acquired the highest average AUC in all semantic-based methods. Integration of MedSim and NetSim (MedNetSim) further improved the average AUC to 96.4 %. We further studied the effectiveness of different data sources. It was found that quality of protein interaction data was more important than its volume. On the contrary, higher volume of gene-disease association data was more beneficial, even with a lower reliability. Utilizing higher volume of disease-related gene data further improved the average AUC of MedNetSim and NetSim to 97.5 % and 96.7 %, respectively. Integrating biomedical literature and protein interaction network can be an effective way to compute disease similarity. Lacking sufficient disease-related gene data, literature-based methods such as MedSim can be a great addition to function-based algorithms. It may be beneficial to steer more resources torward studying gene-disease associations and improving the quality of protein interaction data. Disease similarities can be computed using the proposed methods at http:// www.digintelli.com:8000/ .

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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 45 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 19%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 25%
Computer Science 10 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 9 19%
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 01 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,381,871
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,385
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,000
of 336,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#84
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 336,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.