39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Book Chapter: not found
      Extreme Programming and Agile Methods — XP/Agile Universe 2002 

      Synergy Landscapes: A Multilayer Network for Collaboration in Biological Research

      other

      Read this book at

      Buy book Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this book yet. Authors can add summaries to their books on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Causal analysis approaches in Ingenuity Pathway Analysis

          Motivation: Prior biological knowledge greatly facilitates the meaningful interpretation of gene-expression data. Causal networks constructed from individual relationships curated from the literature are particularly suited for this task, since they create mechanistic hypotheses that explain the expression changes observed in datasets. Results: We present and discuss a suite of algorithms and tools for inferring and scoring regulator networks upstream of gene-expression data based on a large-scale causal network derived from the Ingenuity Knowledge Base. We extend the method to predict downstream effects on biological functions and diseases and demonstrate the validity of our approach by applying it to example datasets. Availability: The causal analytics tools ‘Upstream Regulator Analysis', ‘Mechanistic Networks', ‘Causal Network Analysis' and ‘Downstream Effects Analysis' are implemented and available within Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA, http://www.ingenuity.com). Supplementary information: Supplementary material is available at Bioinformatics online.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses.

            The evolution of the electronic age has led to the development of numerous medical databases on the World Wide Web, offering search facilities on a particular subject and the ability to perform citation analysis. We compared the content coverage and practical utility of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The official Web pages of the databases were used to extract information on the range of journals covered, search facilities and restrictions, and update frequency. We used the example of a keyword search to evaluate the usefulness of these databases in biomedical information retrieval and a specific published article to evaluate their utility in performing citation analysis. All databases were practical in use and offered numerous search facilities. PubMed and Google Scholar are accessed for free. The keyword search with PubMed offers optimal update frequency and includes online early articles; other databases can rate articles by number of citations, as an index of importance. For citation analysis, Scopus offers about 20% more coverage than Web of Science, whereas Google Scholar offers results of inconsistent accuracy. PubMed remains an optimal tool in biomedical electronic research. Scopus covers a wider journal range, of help both in keyword searching and citation analysis, but it is currently limited to recent articles (published after 1995) compared with Web of Science. Google Scholar, as for the Web in general, can help in the retrieval of even the most obscure information but its use is marred by inadequate, less often updated, citation information.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration.

              M. Newman (2004)
              By using data from three bibliographic databases in biology, physics, and mathematics, respectively, networks are constructed in which the nodes are scientists, and two scientists are connected if they have coauthored a paper. We use these networks to answer a broad variety of questions about collaboration patterns, such as the numbers of papers authors write, how many people they write them with, what the typical distance between scientists is through the network, and how patterns of collaboration vary between subjects and over time. We also summarize a number of recent results by other authors on coauthorship patterns.
                Bookmark

                Author and book information

                Book Chapter
                2016
                January 05 2016
                : 205-212
                10.1007/978-3-319-28361-6_18
                2b11c78e-ec7d-45ec-b3f5-c2294a80bf21
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this book

                Book chapters

                Similar content2,196

                Cited by3