↓ Skip to main content

An integrative imputation method based on multi-omics datasets

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, June 2016
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
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
An integrative imputation method based on multi-omics datasets
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1122-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dongdong Lin, Jigang Zhang, Jingyao Li, Chao Xu, Hong-Wen Deng, Yu-Ping Wang

Abstract

Integrative analysis of multi-omics data is becoming increasingly important to unravel functional mechanisms of complex diseases. However, the currently available multi-omics datasets inevitably suffer from missing values due to technical limitations and various constrains in experiments. These missing values severely hinder integrative analysis of multi-omics data. Current imputation methods mainly focus on using single omics data while ignoring biological interconnections and information imbedded in multi-omics data sets. In this study, a novel multi-omics imputation method was proposed to integrate multiple correlated omics datasets for improving the imputation accuracy. Our method was designed to: 1) combine the estimates of missing value from individual omics data itself as well as from other omics, and 2) simultaneously impute multiple missing omics datasets by an iterative algorithm. We compared our method with five imputation methods using single omics data at different noise levels, sample sizes and data missing rates. The results demonstrated the advantage and efficiency of our method, consistently in terms of the imputation error and the recovery of mRNA-miRNA network structure. We concluded that our proposed imputation method can utilize more biological information to minimize the imputation error and thus can improve the performance of downstream analysis such as genetic regulatory network construction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 29%
Researcher 17 21%
Student > Master 7 9%
Lecturer 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 14 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 16%
Engineering 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 19 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#13,239,298
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,011
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,351
of 353,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#45
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 353,105 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.