Identification of the Compound Subjective Rule Interestingness Measure for Rule-Based Functional Description of Genes
Methods for automatic functional description of gene groups are useful tools supporting the interpretation of biological experiments. The RuleGO algorithm provides functional interpretation of gene groups in a form of logical rules including combinations of Gene Ontology terms in their premises. The number of rules generated by the algorithm is usually huge and additional methods of rule quality evaluation and filtration are required in order to select the most interesting ones. In the paper, we apply the multicriteria decision making UTA method to obtain a ranking of rules based on subjective expert opinion which is provided in a form of an ordered list of several rules. The presented approach is applied to the well known data set from microarray experiment and the results are compared with the standard RuleGO compound rule quality measure.
Keywordsrule quality rule interestingness multicriteria decision making functional annotations Gene Ontology bioinformatics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Siskos, Y., Grigoroudis, E., Matsatsinis, N.: UTA methods. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 297–343. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
- 7.Gruca, A.: Characterization of gene groups using decision rules (in Polish). PhD thesis, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland (2009)Google Scholar
- 13.Bayardo, R.J., Agrawal, R.: Mining the most interesting rules. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Diego, California, United States, pp. 145–154. ACM (1999)Google Scholar
- 16.Abe, H., Tsumoto, S.: Comparing accuracies of rule evaluation models to determine human criteria on evaluated rule sets. In: Proc. of the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, Italy, pp. 1–7. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
- 17.Lenca, P., et al.: A multicriteria decision aid for interestingness measure selection. Lussi-tr-2004-01-em, LUSSI Department, GET/ENST, Bretagne, France (2004)Google Scholar
- 18.Brans, J., Mareschal, B.: PROMETHEE Methods. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 163–195. Springer, New York (2005)Google Scholar