ArticlePloS one2019
Fast optimization of non-negative matrix tri-factorization.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uncovering the Understanding of the Concept of Patient Similarity in Cancer Research and Treatment: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Spatially Informed Nonnegative Matrix Trifactorization for Coclustering Mass Spectrometry Data.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2025Article
- Simplicity within biological complexity.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-negative matrix tri-factorization (NMTF) is a popular technique for learning low-dimensional feature representation of relational data. Currently, NMTF learns a representation of a dataset through an optimization procedure that typically uses multiplicative update rules. This procedure has had limited success, and its failure cases have not been well understood. We here perform an empirical study involving six large datasets comparing multiplicative update rules with three alternative optimization methods, including alternating least squares, projected gradients, and coordinate descent. We find that methods based on projected gradients and coordinate descent converge up to twenty-four times faster than multiplicative update rules. Furthermore, alternating least squares method can quickly train NMTF models on sparse datasets but often fails on dense datasets. Coordinate descent-based NMTF converges up to sixteen times faster compared to well-established methods.
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.