↓ Skip to main content

A powerful score-based statistical test for group difference in weighted biological networks

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
A powerful score-based statistical test for group difference in weighted biological networks
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-0916-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiadong Ji, Zhongshang Yuan, Xiaoshuai Zhang, Fuzhong Xue

Abstract

Complex disease is largely determined by a number of biomolecules interwoven into networks, rather than a single biomolecule. A key but inadequately addressed issue is how to test possible differences of the networks between two groups. Group-level comparison of network properties may shed light on underlying disease mechanisms and benefit the design of drug targets for complex diseases. We therefore proposed a powerful score-based statistic to detect group difference in weighted networks, which simultaneously capture the vertex changes and edge changes. Simulation studies indicated that the proposed network difference measure (NetDifM) was stable and outperformed other methods existed, under various sample sizes and network topology structure. One application to real data about GWAS of leprosy successfully identified the specific gene interaction network contributing to leprosy. For additional gene expression data of ovarian cancer, two candidate subnetworks, PI3K-AKT and Notch signaling pathways, were considered and identified respectively. The proposed method, accounting for the vertex changes and edge changes simultaneously, is valid and powerful to capture the group difference of biological networks.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Denmark 1 4%
Brazil 1 4%
Unknown 25 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 29%
Student > Master 4 14%
Other 1 4%
Professor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 36%
Computer Science 8 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 3 11%
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 21 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,785,991
of 22,846,662 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,941
of 7,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,357
of 400,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#121
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,846,662 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,291 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 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 400,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.