Unsupervised GRN Ensemble
Methods in Molecular Biology, ISSN: 1064-3745, Vol: 1883, Page: 283-302
2019
- 1Citations
- 14Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Book Chapter Description
Inferring gene regulatory networks from expression data is a very challenging problem that has raised the interest of the scientific community. Different algorithms have been proposed to try to solve this issue, but it has been shown that different methods have some particular biases and strengths, and none of them is the best across all types of data and datasets. As a result, the idea of aggregating various network inferences through a consensus mechanism naturally arises. In this chapter, a common framework to standardize already proposed consensus methods is presented, and based on this framework different proposals are introduced and analyzed in two different scenarios: Homogeneous and Heterogeneous. The first scenario reflects situations where the networks to be aggregated are rather similar because they are obtained with inference algorithms working on the same data, whereas the second scenario deals with very diverse networks because various sources of data are used to generate the individual networks. A procedure for combining multiple network inference algorithms is analyzed in a systematic way. The results show that there is a very significant difference between these two scenarios, and that the best way to combine networks in the Heterogeneous scenario is not the most commonly used. We show in particular that aggregation in the Heterogeneous scenario can be very beneficial if the individual networks are combined with our new proposed method ScaleLSum.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85058770505&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8882-2_12; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30547405; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4939-8882-2_12; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8882-2_12; https://link.springer.com/protocol/10.1007/978-1-4939-8882-2_12
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know