2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2016.03.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prediction and validation of association between microRNAs and diseases by multipath methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
24
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Zeng et al 30. proposed two multipath methods to predict disease related genes based on gene-disease heterogeneous network and then applied to predict miRNA-disease associations31, and achieved good results. Unfortunately, such machine-learning-based approaches face a common limitation; the negative training samples consisting of non-association between miRNAs and diseases do not demonstrate sufficient statistical confidence because an association was not observed in a biological experiment that cannot draw a conclusion indicating no association between them.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Zeng et al 30. proposed two multipath methods to predict disease related genes based on gene-disease heterogeneous network and then applied to predict miRNA-disease associations31, and achieved good results. Unfortunately, such machine-learning-based approaches face a common limitation; the negative training samples consisting of non-association between miRNAs and diseases do not demonstrate sufficient statistical confidence because an association was not observed in a biological experiment that cannot draw a conclusion indicating no association between them.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To further confirm the value of our approach, we also used the mean percentile ranking (MPR), an evaluation index based on recall, to evaluate the performance of the algorithm. This evaluation index has been applied in recommendation algorithm and analyses of the performance for predicting drug-targets (Hu et al, 2008;Johnson, 2014;Li et al, 2015;Ding et al, 2017;Hao et al, 2019;Liu et al, 2019b;Liu et al, 2019c; and disease biomarkers (Chen et al, 2016;Zeng et al, 2016;Hong et al, 2019;Xu et al, 2019). For each disease, the genes were ranked in descending order according to the calculated gene-disease predictive value.…”
Section: Evaluation Indexes and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Machine learning methods have also entered the eld of bioinformatics research. [40][41][42] Support vector machines (SVMs) were used by Jiang et al, 43 Xu et al, 44 Zeng et al 45 and Wang et al, 46 a logistic model tree was used by Wang et al, 47 and a decision tree was used by Zhao et al; 48 these are excellent classication tools with global optimality and better generalization abilities to predict potential disease-related candidate miRNAs, but such methods require known negative sample information related to disease-related miRNAs that is difficult to obtain. In order to solve the problem of negative sample acquisition, Chen et al 49 used a regularized least squares approach to optimize similarity networks of miRNAs and diseases, respectively, and the nal miRNA-disease associations were linear weightings of miRNA similarity scores and disease similarity scores.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%