↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge Driven Variable Selection (KDVS) – a new approach to enrichment analysis of gene signatures obtained from high–throughput data

Overview of attention for article published in Source Code for Biology and Medicine, January 2013
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
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Knowledge Driven Variable Selection (KDVS) – a new approach to enrichment analysis of gene signatures obtained from high–throughput data
Published in
Source Code for Biology and Medicine, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1751-0473-8-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grzegorz Zycinski, Annalisa Barla, Margherita Squillario, Tiziana Sanavia, Barbara Di Camillo, Alessandro Verri

Abstract

High-throughput (HT) technologies provide huge amount of gene expression data that can be used to identify biomarkers useful in the clinical practice. The most frequently used approaches first select a set of genes (i.e. gene signature) able to characterize differences between two or more phenotypical conditions, and then provide a functional assessment of the selected genes with an a posteriori enrichment analysis, based on biological knowledge. However, this approach comes with some drawbacks. First, gene selection procedure often requires tunable parameters that affect the outcome, typically producing many false hits. Second, a posteriori enrichment analysis is based on mapping between biological concepts and gene expression measurements, which is hard to compute because of constant changes in biological knowledge and genome analysis. Third, such mapping is typically used in the assessment of the coverage of gene signature by biological concepts, that is either score-based or requires tunable parameters as well, limiting its power.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 5%
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Luxembourg 1 2%
Unknown 36 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 27%
Student > Master 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 15 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 32%
Engineering 4 10%
Mathematics 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 2 5%
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 29 April 2013.
All research outputs
#13,375,146
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Source Code for Biology and Medicine
#64
of 127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,216
of 282,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Source Code for Biology and Medicine
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 127 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 282,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.