ArticlePloS one2015
Learning Predictive Interactions Using Information Gain and Bayesian Network Scoring.
Article in PloS one, 2015. 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.
- Machine Learning to Discern Interactive Clusters of Risk Factors for Late Recurrence of Metastatic Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2022Article
- A distinguishing profile of chemokines, cytokines and biomarkers in the saliva of children with Sjögren's syndrome.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Dataset-chemokines, cytokines, and biomarkers in the saliva of children with Sjögren's syndrome.Data in brief · 2021Article
- Article
- Connecting Social Psychology and Deep Reinforcement Learning: A Probabilistic Predictor on the Intention to Do Home-Based Physical Activity After Message Exposure.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- The Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Genetic Study of Alzheimer's Disease.Aging and disease · 2020Review
- Leveraging Bayesian networks and information theory to learn risk factors for breast cancer metastasis.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Network Intervention, a Method to Address Complex Therapeutic Strategies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
- New Algorithm and Software (BNOmics) for Inferring and Visualizing Bayesian Networks from Heterogeneous Big Biological and Genetic Data.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2017Article
- Modeling miRNA-mRNA interactions that cause phenotypic abnormality in breast cancer patients.PloS one · 2017Article
- An algorithm for direct causal learning of influences on patient outcomes.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2017Article
- Discovering causal interactions using Bayesian network scoring and information gain.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe problems of correlation and classification are long-standing in the fields of statistics and machine learning, and techniques have been developed to address these problems. We are now in the era of high-dimensional data, which is data that can concern billions of variables. These data present new challenges. In particular, it is difficult to discover predictive variables, when each variable has little marginal effect. An example concerns Genome-wide Association Studies (GWAS) datasets, which involve millions of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs), where some of the SNPs interact epistatically to affect disease status. Towards determining these interacting SNPs, researchers developed techniques that addressed this specific problem. However, the problem is more general, and so these techniques are applicable to other problems concerning interactions. A difficulty with many of these techniques is that they do not distinguish whether a learned interaction is actually an interaction or whether it involves several variables with strong marginal effects. METHODOLOGY/
findingsWe address this problem using information gain and Bayesian network scoring. First, we identify candidate interactions by determining whether together variables provide more information than they do separately. Then we use Bayesian network scoring to see if a candidate interaction really is a likely model. Our strategy is called MBS-IGain. Using 100 simulated datasets and a real GWAS Alzheimer's dataset, we investigated the performance of MBS-IGain. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: When analyzing the simulated datasets, MBS-IGain substantially out-performed nine previous methods at locating interacting predictors, and at identifying interactions exactly. When analyzing the real Alzheimer's dataset, we obtained new results and results that substantiated previous findings. We conclude that MBS-IGain is highly effective at finding interactions in high-dimensional datasets. This result is significant because we have increasingly abundant high-dimensional data in many domains, and to learn causes and perform prediction/classification using these data, we often must first identify interactions.
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.