↓ Skip to main content

Discovering causal interactions using Bayesian network scoring and information gain

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Discovering causal interactions using Bayesian network scoring and information gain
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1084-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zexian Zeng, Xia Jiang, Richard Neapolitan

Abstract

The problem of learning causal influences from data has recently attracted much attention. Standard statistical methods can have difficulty learning discrete causes, which interacting to affect a target, because the assumptions in these methods often do not model discrete causal relationships well. An important task then is to learn such interactions from data. Motivated by the problem of learning epistatic interactions from datasets developed in genome-wide association studies (GWAS), researchers conceived new methods for learning discrete interactions. However, many of these methods do not differentiate a model representing a true interaction from a model representing non-interacting causes with strong individual affects. The recent algorithm MBS-IGain addresses this difficulty by using Bayesian network learning and information gain to discover interactions from high-dimensional datasets. However, MBS-IGain requires marginal effects to detect interactions containing more than two causes. If the dataset is not high-dimensional, we can avoid this shortcoming by doing an exhaustive search. We develop Exhaustive-IGain, which is like MBS-IGain but does an exhaustive search. We compare the performance of Exhaustive-IGain to MBS-IGain using low-dimensional simulated datasets based on interactions with marginal effects and ones based on interactions without marginal effects. Their performance is similar on the datasets based on marginal effects. However, Exhaustive-IGain compellingly outperforms MBS-IGain on the datasets based on 3 and 4-cause interactions without marginal effects. We apply Exhaustive-IGain to investigate how clinical variables interact to affect breast cancer survival, and obtain results that agree with judgements of a breast cancer oncologist. We conclude that the combined use of information gain and Bayesian network scoring enables us to discover higher order interactions with no marginal effects if we perform an exhaustive search. We further conclude that Exhaustive-IGain can be effective when applied to real data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 63 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 23%
Researcher 15 23%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 17 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 15%
Engineering 9 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 9 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 June 2016.
All research outputs
#6,286,488
of 23,585,652 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,309
of 7,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,960
of 338,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#32
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,585,652 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,400 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 338,608 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.