Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jonas Bulthuis
dblp:340/2779
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 since 2021
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 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bioinformatics and computational biology › network bioinformatics › biological network analysis
differential network analysis |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | GeneNetTools: tests for Gaussian graphical models with shrinkage · Bioinform. 2022 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › biological network › network biology › network inference › gene regulatory network inference
gaussian graphical model |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | GeneNetTools: tests for Gaussian graphical models with shrinkage · Bioinform. 2022 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › biological network › network biology › network inference
gene regulatory network inference |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | GeneNetTools: tests for Gaussian graphical models with shrinkage · Bioinform. 2022 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology
statistical genetics |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | GeneNetTools: tests for Gaussian graphical models with shrinkage · Bioinform. 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
parametric hypothesis testing · 0.6ledoit-wolf shrinkage · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | GeneNetTools: tests for Gaussian graphical models with shrinkageabstractMOTIVATION: Gaussian graphical models (GGMs) are network representations of random variables (as nodes) and their partial correlations (as edges). GGMs overcome the challenges of high-dimensional data analysis by using shrinkage methodologies. Therefore, they have become useful to reconstruct gene regulatory networks from gene-expression profiles. However, it is often ignored that the partial correlations are 'shrunk' and that they cannot be compared/assessed directly. Therefore, accurate (differential) network analyses need to account for the number of variables, the sample size, and also the shrinkage value, otherwise, the analysis and its biological interpretation would turn biased. To date, there are no appropriate methods to account for these factors and address these issues. RESULTS: We derive the statistical properties of the partial correlation obtained with the Ledoit-Wolf shrinkage. Our result provides a toolbox for (differential) network analyses as (i) confidence intervals, (ii) a test for zero partial correlation (null-effects) and (iii) a test to compare partial correlations. Our novel (parametric) methods account for the number of variables, the sample size and the shrinkage values. Additionally, they are computationally fast, simple to implement and require only basic statistical knowledge. Our simulations show that the novel tests perform better than DiffNetFDR-a recently published alternative-in terms of the trade-off between true and false positives. The methods are demonstrated on synthetic data and two gene-expression datasets from Escherichia coli and Mus musculus. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The R package with the methods and the R script with the analysis are available in https://github.com/V-Bernal/GeneNetTools. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. Victor Bernal, Venustiano Soancatl, Jonas Bulthuis, Victor Guryev, Peter Horvatovich, Marco Grzegorczyk |
Bioinform. | 3 |