4.4 Article

JOINT ESTIMATION OF MULTIPLE RELATED BIOLOGICAL NETWORKS

期刊

ANNALS OF APPLIED STATISTICS
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 1892-1919

出版社

INST MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS
DOI: 10.1214/14-AOAS761

关键词

Bayesian network; hierarchical model; belief propagation; information sharing

资金

  1. NCI [U54 CA112970]
  2. UK EPSRC [EP/E501311/1, EP/D002060/1]
  3. Cancer Systems Biology Center grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research
  4. Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award
  5. MRC [MC_UP_1302/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/D002060/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [MC_UP_1302/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Graphical models are widely used to make inferences concerning interplay in multivariate systems. In many applications, data are collected from multiple related but nonidentical units whose underlying networks may differ but are likely to share features. Here we present a hierarchical Bayesian formulation for joint estimation of multiple networks in this nonidentically distributed setting. The approach is general: given a suitable class of graphical models, it uses an exchangeability assumption on networks to provide a corresponding joint formulation. Motivated by emerging experimental designs in molecular biology, we focus on time-course data with interventions, using dynamic Bayesian networks as the graphical models. We introduce a computationally efficient, deterministic algorithm for exact joint inference in this setting. We provide an upper bound on the gains that joint estimation offers relative to separate estimation for each network and empirical results that support and extend the theory, including an extensive simulation study and an application to proteomic data from human cancer cell lines. Finally, we describe approximations that are still more computationally efficient than the exact algorithm and that also demonstrate good empirical performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据