↓ Skip to main content

Bayesian graphical models for computational network biology

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Bayesian graphical models for computational network biology
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2063-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yang Ni, Peter Müller, Lin Wei, Yuan Ji

Abstract

Computational network biology is an emerging interdisciplinary research area. Among many other network approaches, probabilistic graphical models provide a comprehensive probabilistic characterization of interaction patterns between molecules and the associated uncertainties. In this article, we first review graphical models, including directed, undirected, and reciprocal graphs (RG), with an emphasis on the RG models that are curiously under-utilized in biostatistics and bioinformatics literature. RG's strictly contain chain graphs as a special case and are suitable to model reciprocal causality such as feedback mechanism in molecular networks. We then extend the RG approach to modeling molecular networks by integrating DNA-, RNA- and protein-level data. We apply the extended RG method to The Cancer Genome Atlas multi-platform ovarian cancer data and reveal several interesting findings. This study aims to review the basics of different probabilistic graphical models as well as recent development in RG approaches for network modeling. The extension presented in this paper provides a principled and efficient way of integrating DNA copy number, DNA methylation, mRNA gene expression and protein expression.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 18%
Computer Science 7 10%
Engineering 7 10%
Mathematics 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 17 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,970,944
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,070
of 7,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,010
of 332,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#67
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,316 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 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 332,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.