Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ruth M. Pfeiffer
dblp:36/772
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
0000-0001-7791-2698ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 3Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-authorTheory of computation · 1 · 1 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
3 papers |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Data mining · 50% Machine learning and data management · 50% |
Topics — the 6 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bioinformatics and computational biology › computational microbiology › microbiome analysis
beta-diversity analysis |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Using standard microbiome reference groups to simplify beta-diversity analyses and facilitate independent validation · Bioinform. 2018 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › computational microbiology
microbiome analysis |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Using standard microbiome reference groups to simplify beta-diversity analyses and facilitate independent validation · Bioinform. 2018 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › biostatistics › statistical bioinformatics
statistical genomics |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Using standard microbiome reference groups to simplify beta-diversity analyses and facilitate independent validation · Bioinform. 2018 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis
gene expression classification |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Prediction error estimation: a comparison of resampling methods · Bioinform. 2005 |
Data mining
model selection |
0.0 | 1 | 2005 | Prediction error estimation: a comparison of resampling methods · Bioinform. 2005 |
Machine learning and data management
resampling |
0.0 | 1 | 2005 | Prediction error estimation: a comparison of resampling methods · Bioinform. 2005 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
pearson correlation · 0.3hotelling test · 0.3bray-curtis dissimilarity · 0.3cross-validation · 0.1bootstrap · 0.1sliced inverse regression · 0.0sliced average variance estimation · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | Least Squares and Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Sufficient Reductions in Regressions with Matrix Valued PredictorsabstractWe propose methods to estimate sufficient reductions of matrix-valued predictors for regression or classification. We assume that the first moments of the predictor matrix given the response can be decomposed into a row and column component via a Kronecker product structure. We obtain least squares and maximum likelihood estimates of the sufficient reductions of the matrix predictors, derive statistical properties of the resulting estimates and present fast computational algorithms with assured convergence. The performance of the proposed approaches in regression and classification is compared in simulations. We illustrate the methods on neuroimaging data. Ruth M. Pfeiffer, Efstathia Bura |
DSAA | 1 |
| 2018 | Using standard microbiome reference groups to simplify beta-diversity analyses and facilitate independent validationabstractMotivation: Comparisons of microbiome communities across populations are often based on pairwise distance measures (beta-diversity). Standard analyses (principal coordinate plots, permutation tests, kernel methods) require access to primary data if another investigator wants to add or compare independent data. We propose using standard reference measurements to simplify microbiome beta-diversity analyses, to make them more transparent, and to facilitate independent validation and comparisons across studies. Results: Using stool and nasal reference sets from the Human Microbiome Project (HMP), we computed mean distances (actually Bray-Curtis or Pearson correlation dissimilarities) to each reference set for each new sample. Thus, each new sample has two mean distances that can be plotted and analyzed with classical statistical methods. To test the approach, we studied independent (not reference) HMP subjects. Simple Hotelling tests demonstrated statistically significant differences in mean distances to reference sets between all pairs of body sites (stool, skin, nasal, saliva and vagina) at the phylum, class, order, family and genus levels. Using the distance to a single reference set was usually sufficient, but using both reference sets always worked well. The use of reference sets simplifies standard analyses of beta-diversity and facilitates the independent validation and combining of such data because others can compute distances to the same reference sets. Moreover, standard statistical methods for survival analysis, logistic regression and other procedures can be applied to vectors of mean distances to reference sets, thereby greatly expanding the potential uses of beta-diversity information. More work is needed to identify the best reference sets for particular applications. Availability and implementation: https://github.com/NCI-biostats/microbiome-fixed-reference. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. Marlena Maziarz, Ruth M. Pfeiffer, Yunhu Wan, Mitchell H. Gail |
Bioinform. | 2 |
| 2005 | Prediction error estimation: a comparison of resampling methodsabstractMOTIVATION: In genomic studies, thousands of features are collected on relatively few samples. One of the goals of these studies is to build classifiers to predict the outcome of future observations. There are three inherent steps to this process: feature selection, model selection and prediction assessment. With a focus on prediction assessment, we compare several methods for estimating the 'true' prediction error of a prediction model in the presence of feature selection. RESULTS: For small studies where features are selected from thousands of candidates, the resubstitution and simple split-sample estimates are seriously biased. In these small samples, leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV), 10-fold cross-validation (CV) and the .632+ bootstrap have the smallest bias for diagonal discriminant analysis, nearest neighbor and classification trees. LOOCV and 10-fold CV have the smallest bias for linear discriminant analysis. Additionally, LOOCV, 5- and 10-fold CV, and the .632+ bootstrap have the lowest mean square error. The .632+ bootstrap is quite biased in small sample sizes with strong signal-to-noise ratios. Differences in performance among resampling methods are reduced as the number of specimens available increase. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A complete compilation of results and R code for simulations and analyses are available in Molinaro et al. (2005) (http://linus.nci.nih.gov/brb/TechReport.htm). Annette M. Molinaro, Richard Simon, Ruth M. Pfeiffer |
Bioinform. | 3 |
| 2003 | Graphical Methods for Class Prediction Using Dimension Reduction Techniques on DNA Microarray DataabstractMOTIVATION: We introduce simple graphical classification and prediction tools for tumor status using gene-expression profiles. They are based on two dimension estimation techniques sliced average variance estimation (SAVE) and sliced inverse regression (SIR). Both SAVE and SIR are used to infer on the dimension of the classification problem and obtain linear combinations of genes that contain sufficient information to predict class membership, such as tumor type. Plots of the estimated directions as well as numerical thresholds estimated from the plots are used to predict tumor classes in cDNA microarrays and the performance of the class predictors is assessed by cross-validation. A microarray simulation study is carried out to compare the power and predictive accuracy of the two methods. RESULTS: The methods are applied to cDNA microarray data on BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers as well as sporadic tumors from Hedenfalk et al. (2001). All samples are correctly classified. Efstathia Bura, Ruth M. Pfeiffer |
Bioinform. | 2 |