ArticleBMC bioinformatics2014
On the selection of appropriate distances for gene expression data clustering.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
57 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Population structure discovery in meta-analyzed microbial communities and inflammatory bowel disease using MMUPHin.Genome biology · 2022Pooled it
- Continuity of transcriptomes among colorectal cancer subtypes based on meta-analysis.Genome biology · 2018Pooled it
- Leiomodin 1 deficiency promotes lipid accumulation and redirects gene regulatory programs in smooth muscle cells exposed to oxidized LDL.Research square · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Ocular Transcriptomics: Applications of Unsupervised and Supervised Learning.Cells · 2025Review
- Double optimal transport for differential gene regulatory network inference with unpaired samples.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- A versatile information retrieval framework for evaluating profile strength and similarity.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Unsupervised machine learning-based stratification and immune deconvolution of liver hepatocellular carcinoma.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- A versatile information retrieval framework for evaluating profile strength and similarity.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Impact of aquaporin-4 and CD11c + microglia in the development of ependymal cells in the aqueduct: inferences to hydrocephalus.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2024Article
- A review of model evaluation metrics for machine learning in genetics and genomics.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2024Review
- Multi-Input data ASsembly for joint Analysis (MIASA): A framework for the joint analysis of disjoint sets of variables.PloS one · 2024Article
- Unveiling human origins of replication using deep learning: accurate prediction and comprehensive analysis.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Characterisation of cell lines derived from prostate cancer patients with localised disease.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Article
- Cross-Study Replicability in Cluster Analysis.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2023Article
- Article
- Assessment of the progression of kidney renal clear cell carcinoma using transcriptional profiles revealed new cancer subtypes with variable prognosis.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Transforming RNA-Seq gene expression to track cancer progression in the multi-stage early to advanced-stage cancer development.PloS one · 2023Article
- How does the structure of data impact cell-cell similarity? Evaluating how structural properties influence the performance of proximity metrics in single cell RNA-seq data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Article
- High levels of chromosomal instability facilitate the tumor growth and sphere formation.Cancer science · 2022Article
- Heterogeneous data integration methods for patient similarity networks.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClustering is crucial for gene expression data analysis. As an unsupervised exploratory procedure its results can help researchers to gain insights and formulate new hypothesis about biological data from microarrays. Given different settings of microarray experiments, clustering proves itself as a versatile exploratory tool. It can help to unveil new cancer subtypes or to identify groups of genes that respond similarly to a specific experimental condition. In order to obtain useful clustering results, however, different parameters of the clustering procedure must be properly tuned. Besides the selection of the clustering method itself, determining which distance is going to be employed between data objects is probably one of the most difficult decisions. RESULTS AND
conclusionsWe analyze how different distances and clustering methods interact regarding their ability to cluster gene expression, i.e., microarray data. We study 15 distances along with four common clustering methods from the literature on a total of 52 gene expression microarray datasets. Distances are evaluated on a number of different scenarios including clustering of cancer tissues and genes from short time-series expression data, the two main clustering applications in gene expression. Our results support that the selection of an appropriate distance depends on the scenario in hand. Moreover, in each scenario, given the very same clustering method, significant differences in quality may arise from the selection of distinct distance measures. In fact, the selection of an appropriate distance measure can make the difference between meaningful and poor clustering outcomes, even for a suitable clustering method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.