↓ Skip to main content

Random generalized linear model: a highly accurate and interpretable ensemble predictor

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
Random generalized linear model: a highly accurate and interpretable ensemble predictor
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-14-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lin Song, Peter Langfelder, Steve Horvath

Abstract

Ensemble predictors such as the random forest are known to have superior accuracy but their black-box predictions are difficult to interpret. In contrast, a generalized linear model (GLM) is very interpretable especially when forward feature selection is used to construct the model. However, forward feature selection tends to overfit the data and leads to low predictive accuracy. Therefore, it remains an important research goal to combine the advantages of ensemble predictors (high accuracy) with the advantages of forward regression modeling (interpretability). To address this goal several articles have explored GLM based ensemble predictors. Since limited evaluations suggested that these ensemble predictors were less accurate than alternative predictors, they have found little attention in the literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 5%
Sweden 3 1%
Poland 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 203 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 53 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 23%
Student > Master 31 14%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 6%
Other 33 15%
Unknown 29 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 61 27%
Computer Science 48 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 5%
Engineering 10 4%
Other 44 20%
Unknown 35 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,940,780
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,512
of 7,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,201
of 285,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#28
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 285,042 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.