↓ Skip to main content

DisSetSim: an online system for calculating similarity between disease sets

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
DisSetSim: an online system for calculating similarity between disease sets
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13326-017-0140-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yang Hu, Lingling Zhao, Zhiyan Liu, Hong Ju, Hongbo Shi, Peigang Xu, Yadong Wang, Liang Cheng

Abstract

Functional similarity between molecules results in similar phenotypes, such as diseases. Therefore, it is an effective way to reveal the function of molecules based on their induced diseases. However, the lack of a tool for obtaining the similarity score of pair-wise disease sets (SSDS) limits this type of application. Here, we introduce DisSetSim, an online system to solve this problem in this article. Five state-of-the-art methods involving Resnik's, Lin's, Wang's, PSB, and SemFunSim methods were implemented to measure the similarity score of pair-wise diseases (SSD) first. And then "pair-wise-best pairs-average" (PWBPA) method was implemented to calculated the SSDS by the SSD. The system was applied for calculating the functional similarity of miRNAs based on their induced disease sets. The results were further used to predict potential disease-miRNA relationships. The high area under the receiver operating characteristic curve AUC (0.9296) based on leave-one-out cross validation shows that the PWBPA method achieves a high true positive rate and a low false positive rate. The system can be accessed from http://www.bio-annotation.cn:8080/DisSetSim/ .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 25%
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 3 19%
Engineering 3 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 2 13%
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 04 January 2018.
All research outputs
#17,915,942
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#288
of 364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,254
of 318,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 364 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. 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 318,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.