↓ Skip to main content

Random forests on Hadoop for genome-wide association studies of multivariate neuroimaging phenotypes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, October 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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 forests on Hadoop for genome-wide association studies of multivariate neuroimaging phenotypes
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-14-s16-s6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yue Wang, Wilson Goh, Limsoon Wong, Giovanni Montana, the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Abstract

Multivariate quantitative traits arise naturally in recent neuroimaging genetics studies, in which both structural and functional variability of the human brain is measured non-invasively through techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). There is growing interest in detecting genetic variants associated with such multivariate traits, especially in genome-wide studies. Random forests (RFs) classifiers, which are ensembles of decision trees, are amongst the best performing machine learning algorithms and have been successfully employed for the prioritisation of genetic variants in case-control studies. RFs can also be applied to produce gene rankings in association studies with multivariate quantitative traits, and to estimate genetic similarities measures that are predictive of the trait. However, in studies involving hundreds of thousands of SNPs and high-dimensional traits, a very large ensemble of trees must be inferred from the data in order to obtain reliable rankings, which makes the application of these algorithms computationally prohibitive.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 121 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 27%
Student > Master 20 16%
Researcher 17 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 24 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 8%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 28 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 01 April 2014.
All research outputs
#2,763,136
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#925
of 7,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,748
of 212,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#13
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,268 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 87% 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 212,096 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.