↓ Skip to main content

A comprehensive comparison of random forests and support vector machines for microarray-based cancer classification

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, July 2008
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
patent
5 patents
q&a
2 Q&A threads

Readers on

mendeley
639 Mendeley
citeulike
16 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
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.
Article details
Title
A comprehensive comparison of random forests and support vector machines for microarray-based cancer classification
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, July 2008
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-9-319
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Cancer diagnosis and clinical outcome prediction are among the most important emerging applications of gene expression microarray technology with several molecular signatures on their way toward clinical deployment. Use of the most accurate classification algorithms available for microarray gene expression data is a critical ingredient in order to develop the best possible molecular signatures for patient care. As suggested by a large body of literature to date, support vector machines can be considered "best of class" algorithms for classification of such data. Recent work, however, suggests that random forest classifiers may outperform support vector machines in this domain.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 639 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 11 2%
Canada 6 <1%
France 5 <1%
Sweden 4 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Malaysia 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Other 8 1%
Unknown 592 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 142 22%
Researcher 85 13%
Student > Master 81 13%
Student > Bachelor 43 7%
Other 29 5%
Other 96 15%
Unknown 163 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 115 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 94 15%
Engineering 58 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 49 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 4%
Other 107 17%
Unknown 189 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 20 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,808,101
of 33,982,974 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#209
of 8,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,419
of 133,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#3
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,982,974 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,469 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 133,811 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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 93% of its contemporaries.