↓ Skip to main content

An argument for mechanism-based statistical inference in cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Human Genetics, November 2014
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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
An argument for mechanism-based statistical inference in cancer
Published in
Human Genetics, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00439-014-1501-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donald Geman, Michael Ochs, Nathan D. Price, Cristian Tomasetti, Laurent Younes

Abstract

Cancer is perhaps the prototypical systems disease, and as such has been the focus of extensive study in quantitative systems biology. However, translating these programs into personalized clinical care remains elusive and incomplete. In this perspective, we argue that realizing this agenda-in particular, predicting disease phenotypes, progression and treatment response for individuals-requires going well beyond standard computational and bioinformatics tools and algorithms. It entails designing global mathematical models over network-scale configurations of genomic states and molecular concentrations, and learning the model parameters from limited available samples of high-dimensional and integrative omics data. As such, any plausible design should accommodate: biological mechanism, necessary for both feasible learning and interpretable decision making; stochasticity, to deal with uncertainty and observed variation at many scales; and a capacity for statistical inference at the patient level. This program, which requires a close, sustained collaboration between mathematicians and biologists, is illustrated in several contexts, including learning biomarkers, metabolism, cell signaling, network inference and tumorigenesis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 4%
Brazil 2 4%
Canada 1 2%
Taiwan 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 46 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 22%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 7 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 13 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 4 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 June 2015.
All research outputs
#3,863,805
of 24,187,394 outputs
Outputs from Human Genetics
#368
of 3,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,839
of 267,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genetics
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,187,394 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,038 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 267,310 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 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.