↓ Skip to main content

Leukemia Prediction Using Sparse Logistic Regression

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 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

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Leukemia Prediction Using Sparse Logistic Regression
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0072932
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tapio Manninen, Heikki Huttunen, Pekka Ruusuvuori, Matti Nykter

Abstract

We describe a supervised prediction method for diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) from patient samples based on flow cytometry measurements. We use a data driven approach with machine learning methods to train a computational model that takes in flow cytometry measurements from a single patient and gives a confidence score of the patient being AML-positive. Our solution is based on an [Formula: see text] regularized logistic regression model that aggregates AML test statistics calculated from individual test tubes with different cell populations and fluorescent markers. The model construction is entirely data driven and no prior biological knowledge is used. The described solution scored a 100% classification accuracy in the DREAM6/FlowCAP2 Molecular Classification of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia Challenge against a golden standard consisting of 20 AML-positive and 160 healthy patients. Here we perform a more extensive validation of the prediction model performance and further improve and simplify our original method showing that statistically equal results can be obtained by using simple average marker intensities as features in the logistic regression model. In addition to the logistic regression based model, we also present other classification models and compare their performance quantitatively. The key benefit in our prediction method compared to other solutions with similar performance is that our model only uses a small fraction of the flow cytometry measurements making our solution highly economical.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 2%
India 1 2%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Other 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 10 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 14%
Engineering 5 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Mathematics 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 8 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 September 2013.
All research outputs
#13,895,518
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#112,066
of 193,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,981
of 199,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,729
of 4,937 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,931 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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 199,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,937 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.