↓ Skip to main content

Learning genetic epistasis using Bayesian network scoring criteria

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
connotea
3 Connotea
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
Learning genetic epistasis using Bayesian network scoring criteria
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-12-89
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xia Jiang, Richard E Neapolitan, M Michael Barmada, Shyam Visweswaran

Abstract

Gene-gene epistatic interactions likely play an important role in the genetic basis of many common diseases. Recently, machine-learning and data mining methods have been developed for learning epistatic relationships from data. A well-known combinatorial method that has been successfully applied for detecting epistasis is Multifactor Dimensionality Reduction (MDR). Jiang et al. created a combinatorial epistasis learning method called BNMBL to learn Bayesian network (BN) epistatic models. They compared BNMBL to MDR using simulated data sets. Each of these data sets was generated from a model that associates two SNPs with a disease and includes 18 unrelated SNPs. For each data set, BNMBL and MDR were used to score all 2-SNP models, and BNMBL learned significantly more correct models. In real data sets, we ordinarily do not know the number of SNPs that influence phenotype. BNMBL may not perform as well if we also scored models containing more than two SNPs. Furthermore, a number of other BN scoring criteria have been developed. They may detect epistatic interactions even better than BNMBL.Although BNs are a promising tool for learning epistatic relationships from data, we cannot confidently use them in this domain until we determine which scoring criteria work best or even well when we try learning the correct model without knowledge of the number of SNPs in that model.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Germany 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 102 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 35%
Researcher 22 19%
Student > Master 14 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 8 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 37%
Computer Science 30 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 9%
Mathematics 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 14 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 December 2020.
All research outputs
#7,451,942
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#3,021
of 7,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,024
of 109,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#20
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,279 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 50% 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 109,436 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 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.