↓ Skip to main content

Graph Constrained Discriminant Analysis: A New Method for the Integration of a Graph into a Classification Process

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Graph Constrained Discriminant Analysis: A New Method for the Integration of a Graph into a Classification Process
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0026146
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincent Guillemot, Arthur Tenenhaus, Laurent Le Brusquet, Vincent Frouin

Abstract

Integrating gene regulatory networks (GRNs) into the classification process of DNA microarrays is an important issue in bioinformatics, both because this information has a true biological interest and because it helps in the interpretation of the final classifier. We present a method called graph-constrained discriminant analysis (gCDA), which aims to integrate the information contained in one or several GRNs into a classification procedure. We show that when the integrated graph includes erroneous information, gCDA's performance is only slightly worse, thus showing robustness to misspecifications in the given GRNs. The gCDA framework also allows the classification process to take into account as many a priori graphs as there are classes in the dataset. The gCDA procedure was applied to simulated data and to three publicly available microarray datasets. gCDA shows very interesting performance when compared to state-of-the-art classification methods. The software package gcda, along with the real datasets that were used in this study, are available online: http://biodev.cea.fr/gcda/.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 42%
Researcher 7 27%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 31%
Computer Science 4 15%
Neuroscience 3 12%
Mathematics 3 12%
Engineering 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 April 2013.
All research outputs
#18,388,295
of 22,776,824 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#154,556
of 194,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,482
of 136,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,116
of 2,565 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,776,824 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 136,558 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,565 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.