↓ Skip to main content

Impact of the Choice of Normalization Method on Molecular Cancer Class Discovery Using Nonnegative Matrix Factorization

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Impact of the Choice of Normalization Method on Molecular Cancer Class Discovery Using Nonnegative Matrix Factorization
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0164880
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haixuan Yang, Cathal Seoighe

Abstract

Nonnegative Matrix Factorization (NMF) has proved to be an effective method for unsupervised clustering analysis of gene expression data. By the nonnegativity constraint, NMF provides a decomposition of the data matrix into two matrices that have been used for clustering analysis. However, the decomposition is not unique. This allows different clustering results to be obtained, resulting in different interpretations of the decomposition. To alleviate this problem, some existing methods directly enforce uniqueness to some extent by adding regularization terms in the NMF objective function. Alternatively, various normalization methods have been applied to the factor matrices; however, the effects of the choice of normalization have not been carefully investigated. Here we investigate the performance of NMF for the task of cancer class discovery, under a wide range of normalization choices. After extensive evaluations, we observe that the maximum norm showed the best performance, although the maximum norm has not previously been used for NMF. Matlab codes are freely available from: http://maths.nuigalway.ie/~haixuanyang/pNMF/pNMF.htm.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 23%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 23%
Engineering 4 15%
Computer Science 4 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 24 May 2017.
All research outputs
#3,172,912
of 24,832,302 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#40,705
of 215,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,912
of 326,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#775
of 4,015 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,832,302 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 215,111 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 326,281 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,015 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.