↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of classification methods that combine clinical data and high-dimensional mass spectrometry data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2014
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
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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 classification methods that combine clinical data and high-dimensional mass spectrometry data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12859-014-0385-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline Truntzer, Elise Mostacci, Aline Jeannin, Jean-Michel Petit, Patrick Ducoroy, Hervé Cardot

Abstract

BackgroundThe identification of new diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers is one of the main aims of clinical cancer research. Technologies like mass spectrometry are commonly being used in proteomic research. Mass spectrometry signals show the proteomic profiles of the individuals under study at a given time. These profiles correspond to the recording of a large number of proteins, much larger than the number of individuals. These variables come in addition to or to complete classical clinical variables. The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the predictive ability of new and existing models combining mass spectrometry data and classical clinical variables. This study was conducted in the context of binary prediction.ResultsTo achieve this goal, simulated data as well as a real dataset dedicated to the selection of proteomic markers of steatosis were used to evaluate the methods. The proposed methods meet the challenge of high-dimensional data and the selection of predictive markers by using penalization methods (Ridge, Lasso) and dimension reduction techniques (PLS), as well as a combination of both strategies through sparse PLS in the context of a binary class prediction. The methods were compared in terms of mean classification rate and their ability to select the true predictive values. These comparisons were done on clinical-only models, mass-spectrometry-only models and combined models.ConclusionsIt was shown that models which combine both types of data can be more efficient than models that use only clinical or mass spectrometry data when the sample size of the dataset is large enough.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 6%
Brazil 1 6%
Unknown 16 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 28%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 5 28%
Chemistry 3 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,205,797
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,722
of 7,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,092
of 361,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#75
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 361,775 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.