↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Rough sets for in silico identification of differentially expressed miRNAs

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Rough sets for in silico identification of differentially expressed miRNAs
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, September 2013
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s40739
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sushmita Paul, Pradipta Maji

Abstract

The microRNAs, also known as miRNAs, are the class of small noncoding RNAs. They repress the expression of a gene posttranscriptionally. In effect, they regulate expression of a gene or protein. It has been observed that they play an important role in various cellular processes and thus help in carrying out normal functioning of a cell. However, dysregulation of miRNAs is found to be a major cause of a disease. Various studies have also shown the role of miRNAs in cancer and the utility of miRNAs for the diagnosis of cancer and other diseases. Unlike with mRNAs, a modest number of miRNAs might be sufficient to classify human cancers. However, the absence of a robust method to identify differentially expressed miRNAs makes this an open problem. In this regard, this paper presents a novel approach for in silico identification of differentially expressed miRNAs from microarray expression data sets. It integrates judiciously the theory of rough sets and merit of the so-called B.632+ bootstrap error estimate. While rough sets select relevant and significant miRNAs from expression data, the B.632+ error rate minimizes the variability and bias of the derived results. The effectiveness of the proposed approach, along with a comparison with other related approaches, is demonstrated on several miRNA microarray expression data sets, using the support vector machine.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Researcher 3 16%
Professor 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 5 26%
Psychology 4 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 1 5%
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 16 September 2013.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,971
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,573
of 212,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#91
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 212,473 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.