Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25758050›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

Segmentation of biological multivariate time-series data.

Nooshin Omranian, Bernd Mueller-Roeber, Zoran Nikoloski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Adaptive, locally linear models of complex dynamics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Beyond the evoked/intrinsic neural process dichotomy.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nooshin Omranian1] Department of Molecular Biology, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, Haus 20, 14476 Potsdam, Germany [2] Systems Biology and Mathematical Modelling Group, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Plant Physiology, Am Muehlenberg 1, 14476 Potsdam, Germany.
Bernd Mueller-RoeberDepartment of Molecular Biology, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, Haus 20, 14476 Potsdam, Germany.
Zoran NikoloskiSystems Biology and Mathematical Modelling Group, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Plant Physiology, Am Muehlenberg 1, 14476 Potsdam, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Time-series data from multicomponent systems capture the dynamics of the ongoing processes and reflect the interactions between the components. The progression of processes in such systems usually involves check-points and events at which the relationships between the components are altered in response to stimuli. Detecting these events together with the implicated components can help understand the temporal aspects of complex biological systems. Here we propose a regularized regression-based approach for identifying breakpoints and corresponding segments from multivariate time-series data. In combination with techniques from clustering, the approach also allows estimating the significance of the determined breakpoints as well as the key components implicated in the emergence of the breakpoints. Comparative analysis with the existing alternatives demonstrates the power of the approach to identify biologically meaningful breakpoints in diverse time-resolved transcriptomics data sets from the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the diatom Thalassiosira pseudonana.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, Theoretical

Identifiers

PMID25758050
PMCPMC5390911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.