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

William J. Welsh

dblp:38/6624 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2005
0000-0002-5618-2072ORCID · corroborated

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

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 3

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%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis
microarray data analysis
0.122005
DNA microarray data imputation and significance analysis of differential expression · Bioinform. 2005
Gaussian mixture clustering and imputation of microarray data · Bioinform. 2004
Bioinformatics and computational biology › protein structure prediction › secondary structure prediction
beta-turn prediction
0.112005
Improved method for predicting ?-turn using support vector machine · Bioinform. 2005
Bioinformatics and computational biology
protein structure prediction
0.112005
Improved method for predicting ?-turn using support vector machine · Bioinform. 2005
Bioinformatics and computational biology › protein structure prediction
secondary structure prediction
0.112005
Improved method for predicting ?-turn using support vector machine · Bioinform. 2005
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis
gene clustering
0.012004
Gaussian mixture clustering and imputation of microarray data · Bioinform. 2004
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis
differential expression analysis
0.012005
DNA microarray data imputation and significance analysis of differential expression · Bioinform. 2005

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

t-test · 0.1support vector machine · 0.1cross-validation · 0.1convex combination · 0.1ANOVA · 0.1model averaging · 0.0gaussian mixture model · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2005 DNA microarray data imputation and significance analysis of differential expression
abstract
MOTIVATION: Significance analysis of differential expression in DNA microarray data is an important task. Much of the current research is focused on developing improved tests and software tools. The task is difficult not only owing to the high dimensionality of the data (number of genes), but also because of the often non-negligible presence of missing values. There is thus a great need to reliably impute these missing values prior to the statistical analyses. Many imputation methods have been developed for DNA microarray data, but their impact on statistical analyses has not been well studied. In this work we examine how missing values and their imputation affect significance analysis of differential expression. RESULTS: We develop a new imputation method (LinCmb) that is superior to the widely used methods in terms of normalized root mean squared error. Its estimates are the convex combinations of the estimates of existing methods. We find that LinCmb adapts to the structure of the data: If the data are heterogeneous or if there are few missing values, LinCmb puts more weight on local imputation methods; if the data are homogeneous or if there are many missing values, LinCmb puts more weight on global imputation methods. Thus, LinCmb is a useful tool to understand the merits of different imputation methods. We also demonstrate that missing values affect significance analysis. Two datasets, different amounts of missing values, different imputation methods, the standard t-test and the regularized t-test and ANOVA are employed in the simulations. We conclude that good imputation alleviates the impact of missing values and should be an integral part of microarray data analysis. The most competitive methods are LinCmb, GMC and BPCA. Popular imputation schemes such as SVD, row mean, and KNN all exhibit high variance and poor performance. The regularized t-test is less affected by missing values than the standard t-test. AVAILABILITY: Matlab code is available on request from the authors.
Rebecka Jörnsten, Hui-Yu Wang, William J. Welsh
Bioinform.3
2005 Improved method for predicting ?-turn using support vector machine
abstract
Motivation: Numerous methods for predicting β-turns in proteins have been developed based on various computational schemes. Here, we introduce a new method of β-turn prediction that uses the support vector machine (SVM) algorithm together with predicted secondary structure information. Various parameters from the SVM have been adjusted to achieve optimal prediction performance. Results: The SVM method achieved excellent performance as measured by the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC = 0.45) using a 7-fold cross validation on a database of 426 non-homologous protein chains. To our best knowledge, this MCC value is the highest achieved so far for predicting β-turn. The overall prediction accuracy Qtotal was 77.3%, which is the best among the existing prediction methods. Among its unique attractive features, the present SVM method avoids overtraining and compresses information and provides a predicted reliability index. Availability: The algorithm is available via a web server on: http://serine.umdnj.edu/~zhangq3/betaturn/ Contact:[email protected] Supplementary information:http://serine.umdnj.edu/~zhangq3/betaturn
Qidong Zhang, Sukjoon Yoon, William J. Welsh
Bioinform.3
2004 Gaussian mixture clustering and imputation of microarray data
abstract
MOTIVATION: In microarray experiments, missing entries arise from blemishes on the chips. In large-scale studies, virtually every chip contains some missing entries and more than 90% of the genes are affected. Many analysis methods require a full set of data. Either those genes with missing entries are excluded, or the missing entries are filled with estimates prior to the analyses. This study compares methods of missing value estimation. RESULTS: Two evaluation metrics of imputation accuracy are employed. First, the root mean squared error measures the difference between the true values and the imputed values. Second, the number of mis-clustered genes measures the difference between clustering with true values and that with imputed values; it examines the bias introduced by imputation to clustering. The Gaussian mixture clustering with model averaging imputation is superior to all other imputation methods, according to both evaluation metrics, on both time-series (correlated) and non-time series (uncorrelated) data sets.
William J. Welsh, Panos Georgopoulos
Bioinform.2