↓ Skip to main content

e-Bitter: Bitterant Prediction by the Consensus Voting From the Machine-Learning Methods

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Chemistry, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
e-Bitter: Bitterant Prediction by the Consensus Voting From the Machine-Learning Methods
Published in
Frontiers in Chemistry, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fchem.2018.00082
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suqing Zheng, Mengying Jiang, Chengwei Zhao, Rui Zhu, Zhicheng Hu, Yong Xu, Fu Lin

Abstract

In-silico bitterant prediction received the considerable attention due to the expensive and laborious experimental-screening of the bitterant. In this work, we collect the fully experimental dataset containing 707 bitterants and 592 non-bitterants, which is distinct from the fully or partially hypothetical non-bitterant dataset used in the previous works. Based on this experimental dataset, we harness the consensus votes from the multiple machine-learning methods (e.g., deep learning etc.) combined with the molecular fingerprint to build the bitter/bitterless classification models with five-fold cross-validation, which are further inspected by the Y-randomization test and applicability domain analysis. One of the best consensus models affords the accuracy, precision, specificity, sensitivity, F1-score, and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) of 0.929, 0.918, 0.898, 0.954, 0.936, and 0.856 respectively on our test set. For the automatic prediction of bitterant, a graphic program "e-Bitter" is developed for the convenience of users via the simple mouse click. To our best knowledge, it is for the first time to adopt the consensus model for the bitterant prediction and develop the first free stand-alone software for the experimental food scientist.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 5 15%
Chemistry 4 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Computer Science 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 13 38%
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 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#20,472,403
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Chemistry
#2,936
of 6,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,280
of 329,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Chemistry
#60
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,010 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 329,870 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.