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

Vidhya Gomathi Krishnan

dblp:63/4098 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology
protein function prediction
0.012003
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
0.012003
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2003 A comparative study of machine-learning methods to predict the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms on protein function
abstract
MOTIVATION: 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