↓ Skip to main content

CompareSVM: supervised, Support Vector Machine (SVM) inference of gene regularity networks

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
CompareSVM: supervised, Support Vector Machine (SVM) inference of gene regularity networks
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12859-014-0395-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zeeshan Gillani, Muhammad Sajid Hamid Akash, MD Matiur Rahaman, Ming Chen

Abstract

BackgroundPredication of gene regularity network (GRN) from expression data is a challenging task. There are many methods that have been developed to address this challenge ranging from supervised to unsupervised methods. Most promising methods are based on support vector machine (SVM). There is a need for comprehensive analysis on prediction accuracy of supervised method SVM using different kernels on different biological experimental conditions and network size.ResultsWe developed a tool (CompareSVM) based on SVM to compare different kernel methods for inference of GRN. Using CompareSVM, we investigated and evaluated different SVM kernel methods on simulated datasets of microarray of different sizes in detail. The results obtained from CompareSVM showed that accuracy of inference method depends upon the nature of experimental condition and size of the network.ConclusionsFor network with nodes (<200) and average (over all sizes of networks), SVM Gaussian kernel outperform on knockout, knockdown, and multifactorial datasets compared to all the other inference methods. For network with large number of nodes (~500), choice of inference method depend upon nature of experimental condition. CompareSVM is available at http://www.cls.zju.edu.cn/binfo/CompareSVM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Spain 1 2%
Malaysia 1 2%
Unknown 57 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 25%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 19 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 11%
Engineering 6 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 8 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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
#6,944,793
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,680
of 7,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,562
of 361,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#46
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 361,296 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 71% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.