↓ Skip to main content

A systematic comparative evaluation of biclustering techniques

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 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
A systematic comparative evaluation of biclustering techniques
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1487-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victor A. Padilha, Ricardo J. G. B. Campello

Abstract

Biclustering techniques are capable of simultaneously clustering rows and columns of a data matrix. These techniques became very popular for the analysis of gene expression data, since a gene can take part of multiple biological pathways which in turn can be active only under specific experimental conditions. Several biclustering algorithms have been developed in the past recent years. In order to provide guidance regarding their choice, a few comparative studies were conducted and reported in the literature. In these studies, however, the performances of the methods were evaluated through external measures that have more recently been shown to have undesirable properties. Furthermore, they considered a limited number of algorithms and datasets. We conducted a broader comparative study involving seventeen algorithms, which were run on three synthetic data collections and two real data collections with a more representative number of datasets. For the experiments with synthetic data, five different experimental scenarios were studied: different levels of noise, different numbers of implanted biclusters, different levels of symmetric bicluster overlap, different levels of asymmetric bicluster overlap and different bicluster sizes, for which the results were assessed with more suitable external measures. For the experiments with real datasets, the results were assessed by gene set enrichment and clustering accuracy. We observed that each algorithm achieved satisfactory results in part of the biclustering tasks in which they were investigated. The choice of the best algorithm for some application thus depends on the task at hand and the types of patterns that one wants to detect.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 149 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 19%
Student > Master 20 13%
Other 8 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 5%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 29 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 40 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 9%
Mathematics 11 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 36 24%
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 25 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,525,776
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,341
of 7,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,627
of 419,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#105
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,308 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 419,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.