↓ Skip to main content

Inferring causal molecular networks: empirical assessment through a community-based effort

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Methods, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
41 X users
patent
2 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
4 Google+ users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
200 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
469 Mendeley
citeulike
15 CiteULike
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
Inferring causal molecular networks: empirical assessment through a community-based effort
Published in
Nature Methods, February 2016
DOI 10.1038/nmeth.3773
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven M Hill, Laura M Heiser, Thomas Cokelaer, Michael Unger, Nicole K Nesser, Daniel E Carlin, Yang Zhang, Artem Sokolov, Evan O Paull, Chris K Wong, Kiley Graim, Adrian Bivol, Haizhou Wang, Fan Zhu, Bahman Afsari, Ludmila V Danilova, Alexander V Favorov, Wai Shing Lee, Dane Taylor, Chenyue W Hu, Byron L Long, David P Noren, Alexander J Bisberg, Gordon B Mills, Joe W Gray, Michael Kellen, Thea Norman, Stephen Friend, Amina A Qutub, Elana J Fertig, Yuanfang Guan, Mingzhou Song, Joshua M Stuart, Paul T Spellman, Heinz Koeppl, Gustavo Stolovitzky, Julio Saez-Rodriguez, Sach Mukherjee

Abstract

It remains unclear whether causal, rather than merely correlational, relationships in molecular networks can be inferred in complex biological settings. Here we describe the HPN-DREAM network inference challenge, which focused on learning causal influences in signaling networks. We used phosphoprotein data from cancer cell lines as well as in silico data from a nonlinear dynamical model. Using the phosphoprotein data, we scored more than 2,000 networks submitted by challenge participants. The networks spanned 32 biological contexts and were scored in terms of causal validity with respect to unseen interventional data. A number of approaches were effective, and incorporating known biology was generally advantageous. Additional sub-challenges considered time-course prediction and visualization. Our results suggest that learning causal relationships may be feasible in complex settings such as disease states. Furthermore, our scoring approach provides a practical way to empirically assess inferred molecular networks in a causal sense.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 469 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 2%
Germany 4 <1%
Italy 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 441 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 127 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 118 25%
Student > Master 36 8%
Student > Bachelor 27 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 22 5%
Other 73 16%
Unknown 66 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 126 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 98 21%
Computer Science 62 13%
Engineering 23 5%
Mathematics 22 5%
Other 59 13%
Unknown 79 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 09 August 2022.
All research outputs
#742,971
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Nature Methods
#966
of 5,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,712
of 315,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Methods
#16
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 315,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.