↓ Skip to main content

Principal component analysis for designed experiments

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Principal component analysis for designed experiments
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-16-s18-s7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomokazu Konishi

Abstract

Principal component analysis is used to summarize matrix data, such as found in transcriptome, proteome or metabolome and medical examinations, into fewer dimensions by fitting the matrix to orthogonal axes. Although this methodology is frequently used in multivariate analyses, it has disadvantages when applied to experimental data. First, the identified principal components have poor generality; since the size and directions of the components are dependent on the particular data set, the components are valid only within the data set. Second, the method is sensitive to experimental noise and bias between sample groups. It cannot reflect the experimental design that is planned to manage the noise and bias; rather, it estimates the same weight and independence to all the samples in the matrix. Third, the resulting components are often difficult to interpret. To address these issues, several options were introduced to the methodology. First, the principal axes were identified using training data sets and shared across experiments. These training data reflect the design of experiments, and their preparation allows noise to be reduced and group bias to be removed. Second, the center of the rotation was determined in accordance with the experimental design. Third, the resulting components were scaled to unify their size unit. The effects of these options were observed in microarray experiments, and showed an improvement in the separation of groups and robustness to noise. The range of scaled scores was unaffected by the number of items. Additionally, unknown samples were appropriately classified using pre-arranged axes. Furthermore, these axes well reflected the characteristics of groups in the experiments. As was observed, the scaling of the components and sharing of axes enabled comparisons of the components beyond experiments. The use of training data reduced the effects of noise and bias in the data, facilitating the physical interpretation of the principal axes. Together, these introduced options result in improved generality and objectivity of the analytical results. The methodology has thus become more like a set of multiple regression analyses that find independent models that specify each of the axes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Unknown 71 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 21%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 8 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 10%
Environmental Science 7 10%
Computer Science 4 5%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Other 21 29%
Unknown 10 14%
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 19 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,351,847
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,377
of 7,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,241
of 389,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#112
of 153 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 389,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.