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

Sanju Attoor

dblp:97/5608 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2005
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-authorApplied, 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 › gene expression analysis › gene expression classification
microarray classification
0.012004
Which is better for cDNA-microarray-based classification: ratios or direct intensities · Bioinform. 2004
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis
microarray data analysis
0.012004
Which is better for cDNA-microarray-based classification: ratios or direct intensities · Bioinform. 2004

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

model-based simulation · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2005 Impact of error estimation on feature selection
Chao Sima, Sanju Attoor, Ulisses Braga-Neto, James Lowey, Edward Suh, Edward R. Dougherty
Pattern Recognit.2
2004 Which is better for cDNA-microarray-based classification: ratios or direct intensities
abstract
MOTIVATION: There are two general methods for making gene-expression microarrays: one is to hybridize a single test set of labeled targets to the probe, and measure the background-subtracted intensity at each probe site; the other is to hybridize both a test and a reference set of differentially labeled targets to a single detector array, and measure the ratio of the background-subtracted intensities at each probe site. Which method is better depends on the variability in the cell system and the random factors resulting from the microarray technology. It also depends on the purpose for which the microarray is being used. Classification is a fundamental application and it is the one considered here. RESULTS: This paper describes a model-based simulation paradigm that compares the classification accuracy provided by these methods over a variety of noise types and presents the results of a study modeled on noise typical of cDNA microarray data. The model consists of four parts: (1) the measurement equation for genes in the reference state; (2) the measurement equation for genes in the test state; (3) the ratio and normalization procedure for a dual-channel system; and (4) the intensity and normalization procedure for a single-channel system. In the reference state, the mean intensities are modeled as a shifted exponential distribution, and the intensity for a particular gene is modeled via a normal distribution, Normal(I, alphaI), about its mean intensity I, with alpha being the coefficient of variation of the cell system. In the test state, some genes have their intensities up-regulated by a random factor. The model includes a number of random factors affecting intensity measurement: deposition gain d, labeling gain, and post-image-processing residual noise. The key conclusion resulting from the study is that the coefficient of variation governing the randomness of the intensities and the deposition gain are the most important factors for determining whether a single-channel or dual-channel system provides superior classification, and the decision region in the alpha-d plane is approximately linear.
Sanju Attoor, Edward R. Dougherty, Yidong Chen 0002, Michael L. Bittner, Jeffrey M. Trent
Bioinform.1
2004 Classifier performance as a function of distributional complexity
Sanju Attoor, Edward R. Dougherty
Pattern Recognit.1
2003 Relation Between Permutation-Test P Values and Classifier Error Estimates
Tailen Hsing, Sanju Attoor, Edward R. Dougherty
Mach. Learn.2