ReviewJournal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology2012
A classification of bioinformatics algorithms from the viewpoint of maximizing expected accuracy (MEA).
Review in Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- PhoglyStruct: Prediction of phosphoglycerylated lysine residues using structural properties of amino acids.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Comprehensive prediction of lncRNA-RNA interactions in human transcriptome.BMC genomics · 2016Article
- Efficient representation of uncertainty in multiple sequence alignments using directed acyclic graphs.BMC bioinformatics · 2015Article
- Accurate multiple network alignment through context-sensitive random walk.BMC systems biology · 2015Article
- Sequence alignment by passing messages.BMC genomics · 2014Article
- CentroidAlign-Web: A Fast and Accurate Multiple Aligner for Long Non-Coding RNAs.International journal of molecular sciences · 2013Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many estimation problems in bioinformatics are formulated as point estimation problems in a high-dimensional discrete space. In general, it is difficult to design reliable estimators for this type of problem, because the number of possible solutions is immense, which leads to an extremely low probability for every solution-even for the one with the highest probability. Therefore, maximum score and maximum likelihood estimators do not work well in this situation although they are widely employed in a number of applications. Maximizing expected accuracy (MEA) estimation, in which accuracy measures of the target problem and the entire distribution of solutions are considered, is a more successful approach. In this review, we provide an extensive discussion of algorithms and software based on MEA. We describe how a number of algorithms used in previous studies can be classified from the viewpoint of MEA. We believe that this review will be useful not only for users wishing to utilize software to solve the estimation problems appearing in this article, but also for developers wishing to design algorithms on the basis of MEA.
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.