↓ Skip to main content

Improved high-dimensional prediction with Random Forests by the use of co-data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Improved high-dimensional prediction with Random Forests by the use of co-data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1993-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dennis E. te Beest, Steven W. Mes, Saskia M. Wilting, Ruud H. Brakenhoff, Mark A. van de Wiel

Abstract

Prediction in high dimensional settings is difficult due to the large number of variables relative to the sample size. We demonstrate how auxiliary 'co-data' can be used to improve the performance of a Random Forest in such a setting. Co-data are incorporated in the Random Forest by replacing the uniform sampling probabilities that are used to draw candidate variables by co-data moderated sampling probabilities. Co-data here are defined as any type information that is available on the variables of the primary data, but does not use its response labels. These moderated sampling probabilities are, inspired by empirical Bayes, learned from the data at hand. We demonstrate the co-data moderated Random Forest (CoRF) with two examples. In the first example we aim to predict the presence of a lymph node metastasis with gene expression data. We demonstrate how a set of external p-values, a gene signature, and the correlation between gene expression and DNA copy number can improve the predictive performance. In the second example we demonstrate how the prediction of cervical (pre-)cancer with methylation data can be improved by including the location of the probe relative to the known CpG islands, the number of CpG sites targeted by a probe, and a set of p-values from a related study. The proposed method is able to utilize auxiliary co-data to improve the performance of a Random Forest.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Mathematics 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 11 24%
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 29 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,458,307
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,890
of 7,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#377,608
of 441,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#121
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,315 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 441,975 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.