↓ Skip to main content

Benchmarking Procedures for High-Throughput Context Specific Reconstruction Algorithms

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2016
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
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Benchmarking Procedures for High-Throughput Context Specific Reconstruction Algorithms
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00410
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria P. Pacheco, Thomas Pfau, Thomas Sauter

Abstract

Recent progress in high-throughput data acquisition has shifted the focus from data generation to processing and understanding of how to integrate collected information. Context specific reconstruction based on generic genome scale models like ReconX or HMR has the potential to become a diagnostic and treatment tool tailored to the analysis of specific individuals. The respective computational algorithms require a high level of predictive power, robustness and sensitivity. Although multiple context specific reconstruction algorithms were published in the last 10 years, only a fraction of them is suitable for model building based on human high-throughput data. Beside other reasons, this might be due to problems arising from the limitation to only one metabolic target function or arbitrary thresholding. This review describes and analyses common validation methods used for testing model building algorithms. Two major methods can be distinguished: consistency testing and comparison based testing. The first is concerned with robustness against noise, e.g., missing data due to the impossibility to distinguish between the signal and the background of non-specific binding of probes in a microarray experiment, and whether distinct sets of input expressed genes corresponding to i.e., different tissues yield distinct models. The latter covers methods comparing sets of functionalities, comparison with existing networks or additional databases. We test those methods on several available algorithms and deduce properties of these algorithms that can be compared with future developments. The set of tests performed, can therefore serve as a benchmarking procedure for future algorithms.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Luxembourg 1 2%
Unknown 55 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 21%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 22%
Computer Science 7 12%
Engineering 4 7%
Chemical Engineering 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 10 17%
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 20 October 2017.
All research outputs
#16,519,119
of 25,093,754 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#6,361
of 15,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,217
of 406,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#78
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,093,754 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 406,901 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.