ArticlePloS one2009
Comparing artificial neural networks, general linear models and support vector machines in building predictive models for small interfering RNAs.
Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting oil accumulation by fruit image processing and linear models in traditional and super high-density olive cultivars.Frontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- ASPsiRNA: A Resource of ASP-siRNAs Having Therapeutic Potential for Human Genetic Disorders and Algorithm for Prediction of Their Inhibitory Efficacy.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2017Article
- Predicting epiglottic collapse in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea.The European respiratory journal · 2017Article
- Determining Cutoff Point of Ensemble Trees Based on Sample Size in Predicting Clinical Dose with DNA Microarray Data.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2016Article
- VIRsiRNApred: a web server for predicting inhibition efficacy of siRNAs targeting human viruses.Journal of translational medicine · 2013Article
- Article
- Genome-wide polycomb target gene prediction in Drosophila melanogaster.Nucleic acids research · 2012Article
- Progress toward in vivo use of siRNAs-II.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2012Review
- Syndromics: a bioinformatics approach for neurotrauma research.Translational stroke research · 2011Article
- Support vector machine model for diagnosis of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer with multidetector computed tomography: a preliminary study.BMC cancer · 2011Article
- HIVsirDB: a database of HIV inhibiting siRNAs.PloS one · 2011Article
- Support Vector Machines Model of Computed Tomography for Assessing Lymph Node Metastasis in Esophageal Cancer with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.Journal of computer assisted tomographyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExogenous short interfering RNAs (siRNAs) induce a gene knockdown effect in cells by interacting with naturally occurring RNA processing machinery. However not all siRNAs induce this effect equally. Several heterogeneous kinds of machine learning techniques and feature sets have been applied to modeling siRNAs and their abilities to induce knockdown. There is some growing agreement to which techniques produce maximally predictive models and yet there is little consensus for methods to compare among predictive models. Also, there are few comparative studies that address what the effect of choosing learning technique, feature set or cross validation approach has on finding and discriminating among predictive models. PRINCIPAL
findingsThree learning techniques were used to develop predictive models for effective siRNA sequences including Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), General Linear Models (GLMs) and Support Vector Machines (SVMs). Five feature mapping methods were also used to generate models of siRNA activities. The 2 factors of learning technique and feature mapping were evaluated by complete 3x5 factorial ANOVA. Overall, both learning techniques and feature mapping contributed significantly to the observed variance in predictive models, but to differing degrees for precision and accuracy as well as across different kinds and levels of model cross-validation.
conclusionsThe methods presented here provide a robust statistical framework to compare among models developed under distinct learning techniques and feature sets for siRNAs. Further comparisons among current or future modeling approaches should apply these or other suitable statistically equivalent methods to critically evaluate the performance of proposed models. ANN and GLM techniques tend to be more sensitive to the inclusion of noisy features, but the SVM technique is more robust under large numbers of features for measures of model precision and accuracy. Features found to result in maximally predictive models are not consistent across learning techniques, suggesting care should be taken in the interpretation of feature relevance. In the models developed here, there are statistically differentiable combinations of learning techniques and feature mapping methods where the SVM technique under a specific combination of features significantly outperforms all the best combinations of features within the ANN and GLM techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.