↓ Skip to main content

Empirical Bayes method for reducing false discovery rates of correlation matrices with block diagonal structure

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Empirical Bayes method for reducing false discovery rates of correlation matrices with block diagonal structure
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1623-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clare Pacini, James W. Ajioka, Gos Micklem

Abstract

Correlation matrices are important in inferring relationships and networks between regulatory or signalling elements in biological systems. With currently available technology sample sizes for experiments are typically small, meaning that these correlations can be difficult to estimate. At a genome-wide scale estimation of correlation matrices can also be computationally demanding. We develop an empirical Bayes approach to improve covariance estimates for gene expression, where we assume the covariance matrix takes a block diagonal form. Our method shows lower false discovery rates than existing methods on simulated data. Applied to a real data set from Bacillus subtilis we demonstrate it's ability to detecting known regulatory units and interactions between them. We demonstrate that, compared to existing methods, our method is able to find significant covariances and also to control false discovery rates, even when the sample size is small (n=10). The method can be used to find potential regulatory networks, and it may also be used as a pre-processing step for methods that calculate, for example, partial correlations, so enabling the inference of the causal and hierarchical structure of the networks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 48%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 29%
Computer Science 3 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Mathematics 2 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Other 5 24%
Unknown 2 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,524,541
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#3,036
of 7,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,738
of 310,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#58
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 310,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.