Ombined precision (i.e., the number of true positives in theOmbined precision (i.e., the number of

Ombined precision (i.e., the number of true positives in the
Ombined precision (i.e., the number of true positives in the output divided by the number of nodes in the output) and recall (i.e., the number of true positives divided by 13, the size of the true PC set) as(1 – precision) 2 + (1 – recall) 2 , toAussem et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2010, 11:487 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/11/Page 4 ofFigure 1 Validation of the learning method on the Insulin benchmark. Empirical experiments on synthetic data sets from the Insulin BN. Each algorithm is run on the node having the largest neighborhood (13 nodes). Four sample sizes were considered: 200, 500, 1000 and 2000. PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27107493 The figure shows the distribution over 100 data sets of the Euclidean distance from perfect precision and recall, in the form of boxplots.measure the Euclidean distance from perfect precision and recall, as proposed in [10]. Figure 1 summarizes the variability of the Euclidean distance over 50 data sets in the form of quadruplets of boxplots, one for each algorithm (i. e., MMPC, GetPC, Inter-IAPC and HPC). The advantage of HPC PD325901 site against the other three algorithms is clearly noticeable. HPC outperforms the other algorithms in terms of Euclidean distance from perfect precision and recall.Simulation experiments on the sample of womensamples to maximize accuracy. As may be seen, the directionality of the arrows was partially identifiable: 14 edges out of 34 were directed, indicating the presence of several robust uncoupled head-to-head meetings (T ?Y ?X).Physiological knowledge integration into the modelThe consensus PDAG obtained by running RHPC on the present sample of women is shown in Figure 2. Line thickness corresponds to the relative confidence of the edges. The edges that appeared more than 25 in the networks were included in the aggregate PDAG. The threshold was tuned on the previous Insulin benchmarkSeveral interconnected groups of variables were identified, e.g., beer consumption, wine consumption and spirit consumption; cigarettes per day and low exercise; OM and SC fat cell sizes. In each of these densely connected subgraphs, the variables were highly interdependent and a common cause is likely to explain the observed correlations. Hence, we added some extra nodes and directed some of the links according to physiological knowledge available in the literature. The result is the partially directed acyclic graph (PDAG) thatAussem et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2010, 11:487 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/11/Page 5 ofFigure 2 Consensus PDAG of visceral obesity related variables in women returned by RHPC. Consensus PDAG obtained by running RHPC on bootstrapped samples. Labels are self-explanatory. Line thickness corresponds to the relative edge strength.Figure 3 BN of visceral obesity related variables in women after physiological knowledge integration into the graph. PDAG of Figure 2 oriented according to biological knowledge. Dash nodes and arrows are latent variables that were added based on current literature.is shown in Figure 3. Dashed nodes and arrows are the latent variables that were added for sake of clarity and coherence. By definition, these latent variables are not observed, nor recorded in our data set. For example, the variable high alcohol intake was added as a common “cause” to beer consumption, wine consumption and spirit consumption; the variable unhealthy lifestyle was added as a common cause to cigarettes per day, high alcohol intake and low exercise; the latent variables fat storage and prevailing hormonal.