↓ Skip to main content

Factors affecting the accuracy of a class prediction model in gene expression data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Factors affecting the accuracy of a class prediction model in gene expression data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0610-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Putri W. Novianti, Victor L. Jong, Kit C. B. Roes, Marinus J. C. Eijkemans

Abstract

Class prediction models have been shown to have varying performances in clinical gene expression datasets. Previous evaluation studies, mostly done in the field of cancer, showed that the accuracy of class prediction models differs from dataset to dataset and depends on the type of classification function. While a substantial amount of information is known about the characteristics of classification functions, little has been done to determine which characteristics of gene expression data have impact on the performance of a classifier. This study aims to empirically identify data characteristics that affect the predictive accuracy of classification models, outside of the field of cancer. Datasets from twenty five studies meeting predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were downloaded. Nine classification functions were chosen, falling within the categories: discriminant analyses or Bayes classifiers, tree based, regularization and shrinkage and nearest neighbors methods. Consequently, nine class prediction models were built for each dataset using the same procedure and their performances were evaluated by calculating their accuracies. The characteristics of each experiment were recorded, (i.e., observed disease, medical question, tissue/cell types and sample size) together with characteristics of the gene expression data, namely the number of differentially expressed genes, the fold changes and the within-class correlations. Their effects on the accuracy of a class prediction model were statistically assessed by random effects logistic regression. The number of differentially expressed genes and the average fold change had significant impact on the accuracy of a classification model and gave individual explained-variation in prediction accuracy of up to 72% and 57%, respectively. Multivariable random effects logistic regression with forward selection yielded the two aforementioned study factors and the within class correlation as factors affecting the accuracy of classification functions, explaining 91.5% of the between study variation. We evaluated study- and data-related factors that might explain the varying performances of classification functions in non-cancerous datasets. Our results showed that the number of differentially expressed genes, the fold change, and the correlation in gene expression data significantly affect the accuracy of class prediction models.

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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 50 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 8 15%
Researcher 7 13%
Other 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 18 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 13 24%
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 06 July 2015.
All research outputs
#7,878,286
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#3,082
of 7,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,008
of 266,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#57
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 7,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 266,554 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.