Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Mark D. Johnson
dblp:11/2343
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2005
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bioinformatics and computational biology
cancer genomics |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Comparative analysis of algorithms for identifying amplifications and deletions in array CGH data · Bioinform. 2005 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › cancer genomics › copy number analysis
copy number estimation |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Comparative analysis of algorithms for identifying amplifications and deletions in array CGH data · Bioinform. 2005 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis › microarray data analysis
array comparative genomic hybridization |
0.0 | 1 | 2005 | Comparative analysis of algorithms for identifying amplifications and deletions in array CGH data · Bioinform. 2005 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
wavelets · 0.1mixture model · 0.1maximum likelihood · 0.1hidden markov model · 0.1genetic algorithm · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | Comparative analysis of algorithms for identifying amplifications and deletions in array CGH dataabstractMOTIVATION: Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) can reveal chromosomal aberrations in the genomic DNA. These amplifications and deletions at the DNA level are important in the pathogenesis of cancer and other diseases. While a large number of approaches have been proposed for analyzing the large array CGH datasets, the relative merits of these methods in practice are not clear. RESULTS: We compare 11 different algorithms for analyzing array CGH data. These include both segment detection methods and smoothing methods, based on diverse techniques such as mixture models, Hidden Markov Models, maximum likelihood, regression, wavelets and genetic algorithms. We compute the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves using simulated data to quantify sensitivity and specificity for various levels of signal-to-noise ratio and different sizes of abnormalities. We also characterize their performance on chromosomal regions of interest in a real dataset obtained from patients with Glioblastoma Multiforme. While comparisons of this type are difficult due to possibly sub-optimal choice of parameters in the methods, they nevertheless reveal general characteristics that are helpful to the biological investigator. Weil R. Lai, Mark D. Johnson, Raju Kucherlapati, Peter J. Park |
Bioinform. | 2 |