↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of different statistical approaches for urinary peptide biomarker detection in the context of coronary artery disease

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, December 2016
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
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Comparison of different statistical approaches for urinary peptide biomarker detection in the context of coronary artery disease
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1390-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleanor Stanley, Eleni Ioanna Delatola, Esther Nkuipou-Kenfack, William Spooner, Walter Kolch, Joost P. Schanstra, Harald Mischak, Thomas Koeck

Abstract

When combined with a clinical outcome variable, the size, complexity and nature of mass-spectrometry proteomics data impose great statistical challenges in the discovery of potential disease-associated biomarkers. The purpose of this study was thus to evaluate the effectiveness of different statistical methods applied for urinary proteomic biomarker discovery and different methods of classifier modelling in respect of the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in 197 study subjects and the prognostication of acute coronary syndromes in 368 study subjects. Computing the discovery sub-cohorts comprising [Formula: see text] of the study subjects based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test, t-score, cat-score, binary discriminant analysis and random forests provided largely different numbers (ranging from 2 to 398) of potential peptide biomarkers. Moreover, these biomarker patterns showed very little overlap limited to fragments of type I and III collagens as the common denominator. However, these differences in biomarker patterns did mostly not translate into significant differently performing diagnostic or prognostic classifiers modelled by support vector machine, diagonal discriminant analysis, linear discriminant analysis, binary discriminant analysis and random forest. This was even true when different biomarker patterns were combined into master-patterns. In conclusion, our study revealed a very considerable dependence of peptide biomarker discovery on statistical computing of urinary peptide profiles while the observed diagnostic and/or prognostic reliability of classifiers was widely independent of the modelling approach. This may however be due to the limited statistical power in classifier testing. Nonetheless, our study showed that urinary proteome analysis has the potential to provide valuable biomarkers for coronary artery disease mirroring especially alterations in the extracellular matrix. It further showed that for a comprehensive discovery of biomarkers and thus of pathological information, the results of different statistical methods may best be combined into a master pattern that then can be used for classifier modelling.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 24%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Computer Science 4 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 8 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 29 May 2017.
All research outputs
#15,450,375
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,390
of 7,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,675
of 420,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#76
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,306 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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 420,227 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.