Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Vidhya Gomathi Krishnan
dblp:63/4098
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2003
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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
1 paper |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bioinformatics and computational biology
protein function prediction |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | A comparative study of machine-learning methods to predict the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms on protein function · Bioinform. 2003 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › statistical genetics › variant effect prediction
SNP effect prediction |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | A comparative study of machine-learning methods to predict the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms on protein function · Bioinform. 2003 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
support vector machine · 0.0decision tree · 0.0cross-validation · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | A comparative study of machine-learning methods to predict the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms on protein functionabstractMOTIVATION: The large volume of single nucleotide polymorphism data now available motivates the development of methods for distinguishing neutral changes from those which have real biological effects. Here, two different machine-learning methods, decision trees and support vector machines (SVMs), are applied for the first time to this problem. In common with most other methods, only non-synonymous changes in protein coding regions of the genome are considered. RESULTS: In detailed cross-validation analysis, both learning methods are shown to compete well with existing methods, and to out-perform them in some key tests. SVMs show better generalization performance, but decision trees have the advantage of generating interpretable rules with robust estimates of prediction confidence. It is shown that the inclusion of protein structure information produces more accurate methods, in agreement with other recent studies, and the effect of using predicted rather than actual structure is evaluated. AVAILABILITY: Software is available on request from the authors. Vidhya Gomathi Krishnan, David R. Westhead |
Bioinform. | 1 |