↓ Skip to main content

Tilting the lasso by knowledge-based post-processing

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Tilting the lasso by knowledge-based post-processing
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1210-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kukatharmini Tharmaratnam, Matthew Sperrin, Thomas Jaki, Sjur Reppe, Arnoldo Frigessi

Abstract

It is useful to incorporate biological knowledge on the role of genetic determinants in predicting an outcome. It is, however, not always feasible to fully elicit this information when the number of determinants is large. We present an approach to overcome this difficulty. First, using half of the available data, a shortlist of potentially interesting determinants are generated. Second, binary indications of biological importance are elicited for this much smaller number of determinants. Third, an analysis is carried out on this shortlist using the second half of the data. We show through simulations that, compared with adaptive lasso, this approach leads to models containing more biologically relevant variables, while the prediction mean squared error (PMSE) is comparable or even reduced. We also apply our approach to bone mineral density data, and again final models contain more biologically relevant variables and have reduced PMSEs. Our method leads to comparable or improved predictive performance, and models with greater face validity and interpretability with feasible incorporation of biological knowledge into predictive models.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 28%
Professor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 5 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Computer Science 1 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 22%
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 03 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,340,423
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,871
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294,149
of 337,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#125
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 337,011 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.