Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Mohammadmahdi R. Yousefi

dblp:87/7970 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 5 · 4 first-author

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
4 papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 83% Computational science and engineering · 17%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene regulation
gene regulatory network
0.212013
Intervention in gene regulatory networks with maximal phenotype alteration · Bioinform. 2013
Bioinformatics and computational biology
biomarker discovery
0.112012
Performance reproducibility index for classification · Bioinform. 2012
Computational science and engineering › numerical analysis
error estimation
0.122012
Performance reproducibility index for classification · Bioinform. 2012
Multiple-rule bias in the comparison of classification rules · Bioinform. 2011
Bioinformatics and computational biology › systems biology › gene regulatory network modeling
probabilistic boolean network
0.012013
Intervention in gene regulatory networks with maximal phenotype alteration · Bioinform. 2013
Bioinformatics and computational biology
feature selection
0.012010
Reporting bias when using real data sets to analyze classification performance · Bioinform. 2010

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

simulation study · 0.4markovian model · 0.2linear programming · 0.2probabilistic modeling · 0.1feature selection · 0.1probabilistic analysis · 0.1linear discriminant analysis · 0.13-nearest-neighbor · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2013 Intervention in gene regulatory networks with maximal phenotype alteration
abstract
MOTIVATION: A basic issue for translational genomics is to model gene interaction via gene regulatory networks (GRNs) and thereby provide an informatics environment to study the effects of intervention (say, via drugs) and to derive effective intervention strategies. Taking the view that the phenotype is characterized by the long-run behavior (steady-state distribution) of the network, we desire interventions to optimally move the probability mass from undesirable to desirable states Heretofore, two external control approaches have been taken to shift the steady-state mass of a GRN: (i) use a user-defined cost function for which desirable shift of the steady-state mass is a by-product and (ii) use heuristics to design a greedy algorithm. Neither approach provides an optimal control policy relative to long-run behavior. RESULTS: We use a linear programming approach to optimally shift the steady-state mass from undesirable to desirable states, i.e. optimization is directly based on the amount of shift and therefore must outperform previously proposed methods. Moreover, the same basic linear programming structure is used for both unconstrained and constrained optimization, where in the latter case, constraints on the optimization limit the amount of mass that may be shifted to 'ambiguous' states, these being states that are not directly undesirable relative to the pathology of interest but which bear some perceived risk. We apply the method to probabilistic Boolean networks, but the theory applies to any Markovian GRN. AVAILABILITY: Supplementary materials, including the simulation results, MATLAB source code and description of suboptimal methods are available at http://gsp.tamu.edu/Publications/supplementary/yousefi13b. CONTACT: [email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Mohammadmahdi R. Yousefi, Edward R. Dougherty
Bioinform.1
2013 Modeling the Next Generation Sequencing sample processing pipeline for the purposes of classification
abstract
BACKGROUND: A key goal of systems biology and translational genomics is to utilize high-throughput measurements of cellular states to develop expression-based classifiers for discriminating among different phenotypes. Recent developments of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies can facilitate classifier design by providing expression measurements for tens of thousands of genes simultaneously via the abundance of their mRNA transcripts. Because NGS technologies result in a nonlinear transformation of the actual expression distributions, their application can result in data that are less discriminative than would be the actual expression levels themselves, were they directly observable. RESULTS: Using state-of-the-art distributional modeling for the NGS processing pipeline, this paper studies how that pipeline, via the resulting nonlinear transformation, affects classification and feature selection. The effects of different factors are considered and NGS-based classification is compared to SAGE-based classification and classification directly on the raw expression data, which is represented by a very high-dimensional model previously developed for gene expression. As expected, the nonlinear transformation resulting from NGS processing diminishes classification accuracy; however, owing to a larger number of reads, NGS-based classification outperforms SAGE-based classification. CONCLUSIONS: Having high numbers of reads can mitigate the degradation in classification performance resulting from the effects of NGS technologies. Hence, when performing a RNA-Seq analysis, using the highest possible coverage of the genome is recommended for the purposes of classification.
Noushin Ghaffari, Mohammadmahdi R. Yousefi, Charles D. Johnson, Ivan Ivanov 0001, Edward R. Dougherty
BMC Bioinform.2
2012 Performance reproducibility index for classification
abstract
MOTIVATION: A common practice in biomarker discovery is to decide whether a large laboratory experiment should be carried out based on the results of a preliminary study on a small set of specimens. Consideration of the efficacy of this approach motivates the introduction of a probabilistic measure, for whether a classifier showing promising results in a small-sample preliminary study will perform similarly on a large independent sample. Given the error estimate from the preliminary study, if the probability of reproducible error is low, then there is really no purpose in substantially allocating more resources to a large follow-on study. Indeed, if the probability of the preliminary study providing likely reproducible results is small, then why even perform the preliminary study? RESULTS: This article introduces a reproducibility index for classification, measuring the probability that a sufficiently small error estimate on a small sample will motivate a large follow-on study. We provide a simulation study based on synthetic distribution models that possess known intrinsic classification difficulties and emulate real-world scenarios. We also set up similar simulations on four real datasets to show the consistency of results. The reproducibility indices for different distributional models, real datasets and classification schemes are empirically calculated. The effects of reporting and multiple-rule biases on the reproducibility index are also analyzed. AVAILABILITY: We have implemented in C code the synthetic data distribution model, classification rules, feature selection routine and error estimation methods. The source code is available at http://gsp.tamu.edu/Publications/supplementary/yousefi12a/.
Mohammadmahdi R. Yousefi, Edward R. Dougherty
Bioinform.1
2011 Multiple-rule bias in the comparison of classification rules
abstract
MOTIVATION: There is growing discussion in the bioinformatics community concerning overoptimism of reported results. Two approaches contributing to overoptimism in classification are (i) the reporting of results on datasets for which a proposed classification rule performs well and (ii) the comparison of multiple classification rules on a single dataset that purports to show the advantage of a certain rule. RESULTS: This article provides a careful probabilistic analysis of the second issue and the 'multiple-rule bias', resulting from choosing a classification rule having minimum estimated error on the dataset. It quantifies this bias corresponding to estimating the expected true error of the classification rule possessing minimum estimated error and it characterizes the bias from estimating the true comparative advantage of the chosen classification rule relative to the others by the estimated comparative advantage on the dataset. The analysis is applied to both synthetic and real data using a number of classification rules and error estimators. AVAILABILITY: We have implemented in C code the synthetic data distribution model, classification rules, feature selection routines and error estimation methods. The code for multiple-rule analysis is implemented in MATLAB. The source code is available at http://gsp.tamu.edu/Publications/supplementary/yousefi11a/. Supplementary simulation results are also included.
Mohammadmahdi R. Yousefi, Jianping Hua, Edward R. Dougherty
Bioinform.1
2010 Reporting bias when using real data sets to analyze classification performance
abstract
MOTIVATION: It is commonplace for authors to propose a new classification rule, either the operator construction part or feature selection, and demonstrate its performance on real data sets, which often come from high-dimensional studies, such as from gene-expression microarrays, with small samples. Owing to the variability in feature selection and error estimation, individual reported performances are highly imprecise. Hence, if only the best test results are reported, then these will be biased relative to the overall performance of the proposed procedure. RESULTS: This article characterizes reporting bias with several statistics and computes these statistics in a large simulation study using both modeled and real data. The results appear as curves giving the different reporting biases as functions of the number of samples tested when reporting only the best or second best performance. It does this for two classification rules, linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and 3-nearest-neighbor (3NN), and for filter and wrapper feature selection, t-test and sequential forward search. These were chosen on account of their well-studied properties and because they were amenable to the extremely large amount of processing required for the simulations. The results across all the experiments are consistent: there is generally large bias overriding what would be considered a significant performance differential, when reporting the best or second best performing data set. We conclude that there needs to be a database of data sets and that, for those studies depending on real data, results should be reported for all data sets in the database. AVAILABILITY: Companion web site at http://gsp.tamu.edu/Publications/supplementary/yousefi09a/
Mohammadmahdi R. Yousefi, Jianping Hua, Chao Sima, Edward R. Dougherty
Bioinform.1