Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26549511›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

Identifying robust communities and multi-community nodes by combining top-down and bottom-up approaches to clustering.

Chris Gaiteri, Mingming Chen, Boleslaw Szymanski, Konstantin Kuzmin, Jierui Xie, Changkyu Lee, Timothy Blanche, Elias Chaibub Neto, Su-Chun Huang, Thomas Grabowski and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Chris GaiteriRush University Medical Center, Alzheimer's Disease Center, Chicago, IL.
Mingming ChenRennselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Computer Science, Troy, NY.
Boleslaw SzymanskiRennselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Computer Science, Troy, NY.
Konstantin KuzminRennselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Computer Science, Troy, NY.
Jierui XieRennselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Computer Science, Troy, NY.
Changkyu LeeAllen Institute for Brain Science, Modeling, Analysis and Theory Group, Seattle, WA.
Timothy BlancheAllen Institute for Brain Science, Modeling, Analysis and Theory Group, Seattle, WA.
Elias Chaibub NetoSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA.
Su-Chun HuangUniversity of Washington, Department of Neurology, Seattle, WA.
Thomas GrabowskiUniversity of Washington, Department of Neurology, Seattle, WA.
Tara MadhyasthaUniversity of Washington, Department of Radiology, Seattle, WA.
Vitalina KomashkoTrialomics, Seattle WA.

Funding

IBIC: Integrated Brain Imaging Center for the University of WashingtonRC4NS073008 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI GRABOWSKI, THOMAS J. · 2010 to 2010
$4.8M
NINDS NIH HHS 1RC4NS073008-01NINDS NIH HHS RC4 NS073008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biological functions are carried out by groups of interacting molecules, cells or tissues, known as communities. Membership in these communities may overlap when biological components are involved in multiple functions. However, traditional clustering methods detect non-overlapping communities. These detected communities may also be unstable and difficult to replicate, because traditional methods are sensitive to noise and parameter settings. These aspects of traditional clustering methods limit our ability to detect biological communities, and therefore our ability to understand biological functions. To address these limitations and detect robust overlapping biological communities, we propose an unorthodox clustering method called SpeakEasy which identifies communities using top-down and bottom-up approaches simultaneously. Specifically, nodes join communities based on their local connections, as well as global information about the network structure. This method can quantify the stability of each community, automatically identify the number of communities, and quickly cluster networks with hundreds of thousands of nodes. SpeakEasy shows top performance on synthetic clustering benchmarks and accurately identifies meaningful biological communities in a range of datasets, including: gene microarrays, protein interactions, sorted cell populations, electrophysiology and fMRI brain imaging.

Indexed as

Cluster AnalysisModels, TheoreticalAlgorithms

Identifiers

PMID26549511
PMCPMC4637843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.