↓ Skip to main content

Prediction of the metabolic syndrome status based on dietary and genetic parameters, using Random Forest

Overview of attention for article published in Genes & Nutrition, November 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 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
Prediction of the metabolic syndrome status based on dietary and genetic parameters, using Random Forest
Published in
Genes & Nutrition, November 2008
DOI 10.1007/s12263-008-0097-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabien Szabo de Edelenyi, Louisa Goumidi, Sandrine Bertrais, Catherine Phillips, Ross MacManus, Helen Roche, Richard Planells, Denis Lairon

Abstract

Metabolic syndrome (MS) is a cluster of metabolic abnormalities associated with an increased risk of developing cardio-vascular diseases, stroke or type II diabetes. Overall, the aetiology of MS is complex and is determined by the interplay between genetic and environmental factors although it is still difficult to untangle their respective roles. The aim of this study was to determine which factors and/or combination of factors could be predictive of MS status. Using a large case-control study nested in a well-characterized cohort, we investigated genetic and dietary factors collected at entry in subjects having developed MS 7 years later. We used a classification technique called Random Forest to predict the MS status from the analysis of these data. We obtained an overall out-of-bag estimation of the correct classification rate of 71.7% (72.1% for the control subjects and 70.7% for the cases). The plasma concentration of 16.1 was the most discriminative variable, followed by plasma concentration of C18.3(n-6) and C18.2. Three SNPs were selected by Random Forest (APOB rs512535, LTA rs915654 and ACACB rs4766587). These SNPs were also significantly associated to the MS by a univariate Fisher test.

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 %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Mathematics 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 12 26%
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 08 April 2010.
All research outputs
#7,454,427
of 22,789,566 outputs
Outputs from Genes & Nutrition
#143
of 388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,596
of 165,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genes & Nutrition
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,566 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 388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 165,349 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.