2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2016.08.063
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Construction of reliable protein–protein interaction networks using weighted sparse representation based classifier with pseudo substitution matrix representation features

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Current approaches to predict new links on biological bipartite networks are mainly based on similarity-based assumption (Sun et al, 2018). Given a network in which two types of nodes representing two kinds of research objects are involved, most of previous prediction model assumes that similar objects of one type tend to be associated with those of another type (Huang et al, 2016b). Therefore, their prediction performance could be greatly influenced by the measurement they adopt to calculate the similarity scores among object of the same types (Huang et al, 2017b).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Current approaches to predict new links on biological bipartite networks are mainly based on similarity-based assumption (Sun et al, 2018). Given a network in which two types of nodes representing two kinds of research objects are involved, most of previous prediction model assumes that similar objects of one type tend to be associated with those of another type (Huang et al, 2016b). Therefore, their prediction performance could be greatly influenced by the measurement they adopt to calculate the similarity scores among object of the same types (Huang et al, 2017b).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 5 describes the average accuracies of other seven methods including LDA+RF (Xiao-Yong et al, 2010), LDA+RoF (Xiao-Yong et al, 2010), AC+RF (Xiao-Yong et al, 2010), AC+RoF [41), WSRC+GE (Huang et al, 2016a), and HOG+SVD+RF (Ding et al, 2016). Table 6 describes the average accuracies of other seven methods including AutoCC (Yanzhi et al, 2008), SVM+LD (Guo et al, 2015), RF+PR+LPQ (Wong et al, 2015), PCA+ELM (You et al, 2013), WSRC+PSM (Huang et al, 2016b), HOG+SVD+RF (Ding et al, 2016), and RVM+BiGP (An et al, 2016). These results using distinct methods on three datasets are intuitively shown by Figure 5B.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Currently, many kinds of computational models based on protein sequences have been presented for predicting PPIs. In this section, to further objectively validate the prediction performance of the proposed method, seven state-of-the-art methods, including Ensemble Deep Neural Networks (EnsDNN) [22], 3-mers-based [31], Bio2vec-based [31], pseudo Substitution Matrix Representation (pseudo-SMR) [32], WSRC with continuous wavelet and discrete wavelet transform (WSRC+CW and DW) [33], feature weighted rotation forest algorithm (FWRF) [17], and Global encoding [34] were compared on the human, H. pylori, and yeast data sets. The comparison results of three benchmark data sets based on five-fold cross-validation of different models are plotted in Figures 2-4, respectively.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%