↓ Skip to main content

Reduction strategies for hierarchical multi-label classification in protein function prediction

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Reduction strategies for hierarchical multi-label classification in protein function prediction
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1232-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricardo Cerri, Rodrigo C. Barros, André C. P. L. F. de Carvalho, Yaochu Jin

Abstract

Hierarchical Multi-Label Classification is a classification task where the classes to be predicted are hierarchically organized. Each instance can be assigned to classes belonging to more than one path in the hierarchy. This scenario is typically found in protein function prediction, considering that each protein may perform many functions, which can be further specialized into sub-functions. We present a new hierarchical multi-label classification method based on multiple neural networks for the task of protein function prediction. A set of neural networks are incrementally training, each being responsible for the prediction of the classes belonging to a given level. The method proposed here is an extension of our previous work. Here we use the neural network output of a level to complement the feature vectors used as input to train the neural network in the next level. We experimentally compare this novel method with several other reduction strategies, showing that it obtains the best predictive performance. Empirical results also show that the proposed method achieves better or comparable predictive performance when compared with state-of-the-art methods for hierarchical multi-label classification in the context of protein function prediction. The experiments showed that using the output in one level as input to the next level contributed to better classification results. We believe the method was able to learn the relationships between the protein functions during training, and this information was useful for classification. We also identified in which functional classes our method performed better.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor 3 4%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 19 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 35 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Engineering 4 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 19 27%
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 2018.
All research outputs
#17,816,222
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,949
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,808
of 321,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#84
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 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 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 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 321,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.