↓ Skip to main content

A meta-learning approach for B-cell conformational epitope prediction

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
A meta-learning approach for B-cell conformational epitope prediction
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12859-014-0378-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuh-Jyh Hu, Shun-Chien Lin, Yu-Lung Lin, Kuan-Hui Lin, Shun-Ning You

Abstract

One of the major challenges in the field of vaccine design is identifying B-cell epitopes in continuously evolving viruses. Various tools have been developed to predict linear or conformational epitopes, each relying on different physicochemical properties and adopting distinct search strategies. We propose a meta-learning approach for epitope prediction based on stacked and cascade generalizations. Through meta learning, we expect a meta learner to be able integrate multiple prediction models, and outperform the single best-performing model. The objective of this study is twofold: (1) to analyze the complementary predictive strengths in different prediction tools, and (2) to introduce a generic computational model to exploit the synergy among various prediction tools. Our primary goal is not to develop any particular classifier for B-cell epitope prediction, but to advocate the feasibility of meta learning to epitope prediction. With the flexibility of meta learning, the researcher can construct various meta classification hierarchies that are applicable to epitope prediction in different protein domains.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Master 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 21%
Computer Science 9 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 11 23%
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 19 November 2014.
All research outputs
#17,732,540
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,927
of 7,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,077
of 362,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#111
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 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 7,273 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 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 362,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.