The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Data mining in the Life Sciences with Random Forest: a walk in the park or lost in the jungle?
Open accessAbstract
In the Life Sciences 'omics' data is increasingly generated by different high-throughput technologies. Often only the integration of these data allows uncovering biological insights that can be experimentally validated or mechanistically modelled, i.e. sophisticated computational approaches are required to extract the complex non-linear trends present in omics data. Classification techniques allow training a model based on variables (e.g. SNPs in genetic association studies) to separate different classes (e.g. healthy subjects versus patients). Random Forest (RF) is a versatile classification algorithm suited for the analysis of these large data sets. In the Life Sciences, RF is popular because RF classification models have a high-prediction accuracy and provide information on importance of variables for classification. For omics data, variables or conditional relations between variables are typically important for a subset of samples of the same class. For example: within a class of cancer patients certain SNP combinations may be important for a subset of patients that have a specific subtype of cancer, but not important for a different subset of patients. These conditional relationships can in principle be uncovered from the data with RF as these are implicitly taken into account by the algorithm during the creation of the classification model. This review details some of the to the best of our knowledge rarely or never used RF properties that allow maximizing the biological insights that can be extracted from complex omics data sets using RF.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
Learning representations by back-propagating errors
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986) · Nature · doi:10.1038/323533a0 · Cited by 31,892
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 · Cited by 25,970
A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity
McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943) · The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics · doi:10.1007/bf02478259 · Cited by 18,566
The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain.
Rosenblatt, F. (1958) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0042519 · Cited by 12,280
Friedman, N., Geiger, D., & Goldszmidt, M. (1997) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1007465528199 · Cited by 4,742
Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A. (2006) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1198/106186006x133933 · Cited by 4,021
A N EW A PPROACH TO D ECODING L IFE : Systems Biology
Ideker, T., Galitski, T., & Hood, L. (2001) · Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.2.1.343 · Cited by 1,664
Moving pictures of the human microbiome
Caporaso, J. G., Lauber, C. L., Costello, E. K., Berg-Lyons, D., Gonzalez, A., Stombaugh, J., Knights, D., Gajer, P., Ravel, J., Fierer, N., et al. (2011) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2011-12-5-r50 · Cited by 1,138
Machine learning and its applications to biology
Tarca, A. L., Carey, V. J., Chen, X.-W., Romero, R., & Drăghici, S. (2007) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030116 · Cited by 656
Systematic analysis of genome-wide fitness data in yeast reveals novel gene function and drug action
Hillenmeyer, M. E., Ericson, E., Davis, R. W., Nislow, C., Koller, D., & Giaever, G. (2010) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2010-11-3-r30 · Cited by 112
Cited by
Rouillard, A. D., Gundersen, G. W., Fernandez, N. F., Wang, Z., Monteiro, C. D., McDermott, M. G., & Ma’ayan, A. (2016) · Database · doi:10.1093/database/baw100 · Cited by 1,515
Luo, W., Phung, D., Tran, T., Gupta, S., Rana, S., Karmakar, C., Shilton, A., Yearwood, J., Dimitrova, N., Ho, T. B., et al. (2016) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.5870 · Cited by 988
Understanding Random Forests: From Theory to Practice
Louppe, G. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1407.7502 · Cited by 693
Deep learning of the tissue-regulated splicing code
Leung, M. K. K., Xiong, H. Y., Lee, L. J., & Frey, B. J. (2014) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu277 · Cited by 459
Mapping flood susceptibility in mountainous areas on a national scale in China
Zhao, G., Pang, B., Xu, Z., Yue, J., & Tu, T. (2018) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.037 · Cited by 389
Metadata
- Authors
- Touw, W. G., Bayjanov, J. R., Overmars, L., Backus, L., Boekhorst, J., Wels, M., & van Hijum, S. A. F. T.
- Venue
- Briefings in Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-07-10
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 315-326
- ISSN
- 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-4054
- OpenAlex
- W2150577353
- Cited by
- 453
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 8.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
