2013
DOI: 10.4161/sysb.24255
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The impact of collapsing data on microarray analysis and DILI prediction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
5
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, and as averaged across folds of cross-validation, a subset of only about 300 genes was used for training the prediction models in the human in vitro study instead of the original 18,988 genes included by the FARMS 16 summarization. The solid performance of multiclassifier approach was not surprising 17,18 as several previous studies 19,20 on this data have already reported good results with single classification algorithms such as support vector machines or gradient boosting. In our case, the performance was boosted by both feature selection and classifier ensembling.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…For instance, and as averaged across folds of cross-validation, a subset of only about 300 genes was used for training the prediction models in the human in vitro study instead of the original 18,988 genes included by the FARMS 16 summarization. The solid performance of multiclassifier approach was not surprising 17,18 as several previous studies 19,20 on this data have already reported good results with single classification algorithms such as support vector machines or gradient boosting. In our case, the performance was boosted by both feature selection and classifier ensembling.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…For instance, and as averaged across folds of crossvalidation, a subset of only about 300 genes was used for training the prediction models in the human in vitro study instead of the original 18,988 genes included by the FARMS 16 summarization. The solid performance of multi-classifier approach was not surprising 17,18 as several previous studies 19,20 on this data have already reported good results with single classification algorithms such as support vector machines or gradient boosting. In our case, the performance was boosted by both feature selection and classifier ensembling.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 53%
“…It is surprising that in vivo assays, which relied on an animal model, performed better than human assays, given the aim was to predict DILI potential in humans. However, Pessiot et al 19 similarly observed that using in vivo animal data was more informative than using in vitro human data. Their AUC scores obtained by a linear support vector machine classifier and inferred from separate toxicogenomic studies were surpassed by those reported by our fusion-based approach.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over the past few years, DILI has significantly become one of the most concerning topics in drug discovery. An up-to-date search on PubMed using the keyword “DILI” has indicated this research trend. Besides experimental approaches, computational studies on compounds causing DILI were also conducted to partially address the limitations of in vitro and in vivo experiments …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%