↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of Flow Cytometry Data by Matrix Relevance Learning Vector Quantization

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2013
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
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
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
Analysis of Flow Cytometry Data by Matrix Relevance Learning Vector Quantization
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0059401
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Biehl, Kerstin Bunte, Petra Schneider

Abstract

Flow cytometry is a widely used technique for the analysis of cell populations in the study and diagnosis of human diseases. It yields large amounts of high-dimensional data, the analysis of which would clearly benefit from efficient computational approaches aiming at automated diagnosis and decision support. This article presents our analysis of flow cytometry data in the framework of the DREAM6/FlowCAP2 Molecular Classification of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Challenge, 2011. In the challenge, example data was provided for a set of 179 subjects, comprising healthy donors and 23 cases of AML. The participants were asked to provide predictions with respect to the condition of 180 patients in a test set. We extracted feature vectors from the data in terms of single marker statistics, including characteristic moments, median and interquartile range of the observed values. Subsequently, we applied Generalized Matrix Relevance Learning Vector Quantization (GMLVQ), a machine learning technique which extends standard LVQ by an adaptive distance measure. Our method achieved the best possible performance with respect to the diagnoses of test set patients. The extraction of features from the flow cytometry data is outlined in detail, the machine learning approach is discussed and classification results are presented. In addition, we illustrate how GMLVQ can provide deeper insight into the problem by allowing to infer the relevance of specific markers and features for the diagnosis.

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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Master 7 13%
Professor 2 4%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 11 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Engineering 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 12 21%
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 19 March 2013.
All research outputs
#13,305,715
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#106,012
of 193,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,159
of 215,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,668
of 5,427 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 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 193,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 215,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,427 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.