ArticlePloS one2014
Ensemble positive unlabeled learning for disease gene identification.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disease candidate genes prediction using positive labeled and unlabeled instances.BMC medical genomics · 2025Article
- A recent survey on instance-dependent positive and unlabeled learning.Fundamental research · 2025Review
- NetREm: Network Regression Embeddings reveal cell-type transcription factor coordination for gene regulation.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
- Identification of potential riboswitch elements in Homo sapiens mRNA 5'UTR sequences using positive-unlabeled machine learning.PloS one · 2025Article
- Learning peptide properties with positive examples only.Digital discovery · 2024Article
- A Novel Classification Method: Neighborhood-Based Positive Unlabeled Learning Using Decision Tree (NPULUD).Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Positive-unlabeled learning identifies vaccine candidate antigens in the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2024Article
- Speos: an ensemble graph representation learning framework to predict core gene candidates for complex diseases.Nature communications · 2023Article
- XGDAG: explainable gene-disease associations via graph neural networks.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Autophagy dark genes: Can we find them with machine learning?Natural sciences (Weinheim, Germany) · 2023Article
- NIAPU: network-informed adaptive positive-unlabeled learning for disease gene identification.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Detecting biased validation of predictive models in the positive-unlabeled setting: disease gene prioritization case study.Bioinformatics advances · 2023Article
- Predicting Parkinson disease related genes based on PyFeat and gradient boosted decision tree.Scientific reports · 2022Review
- Machine learning prediction and tau-based screening identifies potential Alzheimer's disease genes relevant to immunity.Communications biology · 2022Article
- Prioritization of disease genes from GWAS using ensemble-based positive-unlabeled learning.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- Computational Identification of Lysine Glutarylation Sites Using Positive-Unlabeled Learning.Current genomics · 2020Article
- Machine learning methods for microbiome studies.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2020Article
- Network Diffusion Promotes the Integrative Analysis of Multiple Omics.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Review
- DDI-PULearn: a positive-unlabeled learning method for large-scale prediction of drug-drug interactions.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Positive-unlabelled learning of glycosylation sites in the human proteome.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An increasing number of genes have been experimentally confirmed in recent years as causative genes to various human diseases. The newly available knowledge can be exploited by machine learning methods to discover additional unknown genes that are likely to be associated with diseases. In particular, positive unlabeled learning (PU learning) methods, which require only a positive training set P (confirmed disease genes) and an unlabeled set U (the unknown candidate genes) instead of a negative training set N, have been shown to be effective in uncovering new disease genes in the current scenario. Using only a single source of data for prediction can be susceptible to bias due to incompleteness and noise in the genomic data and a single machine learning predictor prone to bias caused by inherent limitations of individual methods. In this paper, we propose an effective PU learning framework that integrates multiple biological data sources and an ensemble of powerful machine learning classifiers for disease gene identification. Our proposed method integrates data from multiple biological sources for training PU learning classifiers. A novel ensemble-based PU learning method EPU is then used to integrate multiple PU learning classifiers to achieve accurate and robust disease gene predictions. Our evaluation experiments across six disease groups showed that EPU achieved significantly better results compared with various state-of-the-art prediction methods as well as ensemble learning classifiers. Through integrating multiple biological data sources for training and the outputs of an ensemble of PU learning classifiers for prediction, we are able to minimize the potential bias and errors in individual data sources and machine learning algorithms to achieve more accurate and robust disease gene predictions. In the future, our EPU method provides an effective framework to integrate the additional biological and computational resources for better disease gene predictions.
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.