↓ Skip to main content

Subtype prediction in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia: classification using differential network rank conservation revisited

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Subtype prediction in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia: classification using differential network rank conservation revisited
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0737-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Askar Obulkasim, Maarten Fornerod, Michel C. Zwaan, Dirk Reinhardt, Marry M. van den Heuvel-Eibrink

Abstract

One of the most important application spectrums of transcriptomic data is cancer phenotype classification. Many characteristics of transcriptomic data, such as redundant features and technical artifacts, make over-fitting commonplace. Promising classification results often fail to generalize across datasets with different sources, platforms, or preprocessing. Recently a novel differential network rank conservation (DIRAC) algorithm to characterize cancer phenotypes using transcriptomic data. DIRAC is a member of a family of algorithms that have shown useful for disease classification based on the relative expression of genes. Combining the robustness of this family's simple decision rules with known biological relationships, this systems approach identifies interpretable, yet highly discriminate networks. While DIRAC has been briefly employed for several classification problems in the original paper, the potentials of DIRAC in cancer phenotype classification, and especially robustness against artifacts in transcriptomic data have not been fully characterized yet. In this study we thoroughly investigate the potentials of DIRAC by applying it to multiple datasets, and examine the variations in classification performances when datasets are (i) treated and untreated for batch effect; (ii) preprocessed with different techniques. We also propose the first DIRAC-based classifier to integrate multiple networks. We show that the DIRAC-based classifier is very robust in the examined scenarios. To our surprise, the trained DIRAC-based classifier even translated well to a dataset with different biological characteristics in the presence of substantial batch effects that, as shown here, plagued the standard expression value based classifier. In addition, the DIRAC-based classifier, because of the integrated biological information, also suggests pathways to target in specific subtypes, which may enhance the establishment of personalized therapy in diseases such as pediatric AML. In order to better comprehend the prediction power of the DIRAC-based classifier in general, we also performed classifications using publicly available datasets from breast and lung cancer. Furthermore, multiple well-known classification algorithms were utilized to create an ideal test bed for comparing the DIRAC-based classifier with the standard gene expression value based classifier. We observed that the DIRAC-based classifier greatly outperforms its rival. Based on our experiments with multiple datasets, we propose that DIRAC is a promising solution to the lack of generalizability in classification efforts that uses transcriptomic data. We believe that superior performances presented in this study may motivate other to initiate a new aline of research to explore the untapped power of DIRAC in a broad range of cancer types.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 5%
United States 1 5%
Unknown 18 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 30%
Student > Master 5 25%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 25%
Computer Science 3 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 10%
Psychology 2 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Other 4 20%
Unknown 3 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,238,817
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,727
of 7,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,083
of 274,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#88
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,287 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 274,809 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.