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

Hege M. Bøvelstad

dblp:92/6561 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2009
—ORCID · none

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

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2 · 2 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%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Machine learning and data management · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology › survival analysis › survival prediction
gene expression-based survival prediction
0.112007
Predicting survival from microarray data - a comparative study · Bioinform. 2007
Bioinformatics and computational biology › survival analysis
survival prediction
0.112007
Predicting survival from microarray data - a comparative study · Bioinform. 2007
Machine learning and data management › statistical learning
high-dimensional regression
0.012007
Predicting survival from microarray data - a comparative study · Bioinform. 2007

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

ridge regression · 0.1principal components regression · 0.1partial least squares · 0.1cox proportional hazards · 0.1LASSO · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2009 Survival prediction from clinico-genomic models - a comparative study
abstract
BACKGROUND: Survival prediction from high-dimensional genomic data is an active field in today's medical research. Most of the proposed prediction methods make use of genomic data alone without considering established clinical covariates that often are available and known to have predictive value. Recent studies suggest that combining clinical and genomic information may improve predictions, but there is a lack of systematic studies on the topic. Also, for the widely used Cox regression model, it is not obvious how to handle such combined models. RESULTS: We propose a way to combine classical clinical covariates with genomic data in a clinico-genomic prediction model based on the Cox regression model. The prediction model is obtained by a simultaneous use of both types of covariates, but applying dimension reduction only to the high-dimensional genomic variables. We describe how this can be done for seven well-known prediction methods: variable selection, unsupervised and supervised principal components regression and partial least squares regression, ridge regression, and the lasso. We further perform a systematic comparison of the performance of prediction models using clinical covariates only, genomic data only, or a combination of the two. The comparison is done using three survival data sets containing both clinical information and microarray gene expression data. Matlab code for the clinico-genomic prediction methods is available at http://www.med.uio.no/imb/stat/bmms/software/clinico-genomic/. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our three data sets, the comparison shows that established clinical covariates will often lead to better predictions than what can be obtained from genomic data alone. In the cases where the genomic models are better than the clinical, ridge regression is used for dimension reduction. We also find that the clinico-genomic models tend to outperform the models based on only genomic data. Further, clinico-genomic models and the use of ridge regression gives for all three data sets better predictions than models based on the clinical covariates alone.
Hege M. Bøvelstad, Ståle Nygård, Ørnulf Borgan
BMC Bioinform.1
2007 Predicting survival from microarray data - a comparative study
abstract
MOTIVATION: Survival prediction from gene expression data and other high-dimensional genomic data has been subject to much research during the last years. These kinds of data are associated with the methodological problem of having many more gene expression values than individuals. In addition, the responses are censored survival times. Most of the proposed methods handle this by using Cox's proportional hazards model and obtain parameter estimates by some dimension reduction or parameter shrinkage estimation technique. Using three well-known microarray gene expression data sets, we compare the prediction performance of seven such methods: univariate selection, forward stepwise selection, principal components regression (PCR), supervised principal components regression, partial least squares regression (PLS), ridge regression and the lasso. RESULTS: Statistical learning from subsets should be repeated several times in order to get a fair comparison between methods. Methods using coefficient shrinkage or linear combinations of the gene expression values have much better performance than the simple variable selection methods. For our data sets, ridge regression has the overall best performance. AVAILABILITY: Matlab and R code for the prediction methods are available at http://www.med.uio.no/imb/stat/bmms/software/microsurv/.
Hege M. Bøvelstad, Ståle Nygård, H. L. Størvold, Magne Aldrin, Ørnulf Borgan, Arnoldo Frigessi, Ole Christian Lingjærde
Bioinform.1