↓ Skip to main content

Penalized weighted low-rank approximation for robust recovery of recurrent copy number variations

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Penalized weighted low-rank approximation for robust recovery of recurrent copy number variations
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0835-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoli Gao

Abstract

Copy number variation (CNV) analysis has become one of the most important research areas for understanding complex disease. With increasing resolution of array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) arrays, more and more raw copy number data are collected for multiple arrays. It is natural to realize the co-existence of both recurrent and individual-specific CNVs, together with the possible data contamination during the data generation process. Therefore, there is a great need for an efficient and robust statistical model for simultaneous recovery of both recurrent and individual-specific CNVs. We develop a penalized weighted low-rank approximation method (WPLA) for robust recovery of recurrent CNVs. In particular, we formulate multiple aCGH arrays into a realization of a hidden low-rank matrix with some random noises and let an additional weight matrix account for those individual-specific effects. Thus, we do not restrict the random noise to be normally distributed, or even homogeneous. We show its performance through three real datasets and twelve synthetic datasets from different types of recurrent CNV regions associated with either normal random errors or heavily contaminated errors. Our numerical experiments have demonstrated that the WPLA can successfully recover the recurrent CNV patterns from raw data under different scenarios. Compared with two other recent methods, it performs the best regarding its ability to simultaneously detect both recurrent and individual-specific CNVs under normal random errors. More importantly, the WPLA is the only method which can effectively recover the recurrent CNVs region when the data is heavily contaminated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 38%
Professor 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 38%
Computer Science 3 38%
Mathematics 1 13%
Engineering 1 13%
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 10 December 2015.
All research outputs
#18,432,465
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,320
of 7,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,831
of 388,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#134
of 153 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,288 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 388,835 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 153 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.