↓ Skip to main content

Asymmetric author-topic model for knowledge discovering of big data in toxicogenomics

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Asymmetric author-topic model for knowledge discovering of big data in toxicogenomics
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2015.00081
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ming-Hua Chung, Yuping Wang, Hailin Tang, Wen Zou, John Basinger, Xiaowei Xu, Weida Tong

Abstract

The advancement of high-throughput screening technologies facilitates the generation of massive amount of biological data, a big data phenomena in biomedical science. Yet, researchers still heavily rely on keyword search and/or literature review to navigate the databases and analyses are often done in rather small-scale. As a result, the rich information of a database has not been fully utilized, particularly for the information embedded in the interactive nature between data points that are largely ignored and buried. For the past 10 years, probabilistic topic modeling has been recognized as an effective machine learning algorithm to annotate the hidden thematic structure of massive collection of documents. The analogy between text corpus and large-scale genomic data enables the application of text mining tools, like probabilistic topic models, to explore hidden patterns of genomic data and to the extension of altered biological functions. In this paper, we developed a generalized probabilistic topic model to analyze a toxicogenomics dataset that consists of a large number of gene expression data from the rat livers treated with drugs in multiple dose and time-points. We discovered the hidden patterns in gene expression associated with the effect of doses and time-points of treatment. Finally, we illustrated the ability of our model to identify the evidence of potential reduction of animal use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 4%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 10 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 12 26%
Unknown 12 26%
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 06 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,405,972
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#8,199
of 16,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,192
of 264,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#55
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 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 16,017 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 264,968 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.