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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Robustness of Random Forest-based gene selection methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-15-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Miron Bartosz Kursa |
| Abstract |
Gene selection is an important part of microarray data analysis because it provides information that can lead to a better mechanistic understanding of an investigated phenomenon. At the same time, gene selection is very difficult because of the noisy nature of microarray data. As a consequence, gene selection is often performed with machine learning methods. The Random Forest method is particularly well suited for this purpose. In this work, four state-of-the-art Random Forest-based feature selection methods were compared in a gene selection context. The analysis focused on the stability of selection because, although it is necessary for determining the significance of results, it is often ignored in similar studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Norway | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 203 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 62 | 29% |
| Researcher | 38 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 6% |
| Professor | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 11% |
| Unknown | 43 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 45 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 36 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 7% |
| Engineering | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 37 | 17% |
| Unknown | 46 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 January 2017.
All research outputs
#7,194,603
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,858
of 7,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,008
of 306,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#35
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,266 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 306,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 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 60% of its contemporaries.