Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30742473›Full record

ArticlePsychological methods2019

Assessing the robustness of cluster solutions obtained from sparse count matrices.

Kathleen M Gates, Zachary F Fisher, Cara Arizmendi, Teague R Henry, Kelly A Duffy, Peter J Mucha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological methods, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Data-driven connectivity profiles relate to smoking cessation outcomes.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Article
  6. Clinical subtyping using community detection: Limited utility?International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Generalizable Long COVID Subtypes: Findings from the NIH N3C and RECOVER Programs.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors.

Kathleen M GatesDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.ORCID 0000-0002-1246-4529
Zachary F FisherDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Cara ArizmendiDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Teague R HenryDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Kelly A DuffyDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Peter J MuchaDepartment of Mathematics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Funding

Network Connectivity Modeling of Heterogeneous Brain Data to Examine Ensembles of Activity Across Two Levels of DimensionalityR01EB022904 · NIBIB · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI GATES, KATHLEEN · 2016 to 2018
$1.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB022904U.S. National Institutes of Health; National Institute for Biomedical Imaging
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychological researchers often seek to obtain cluster solutions from sparse count matrices (e.g., social networks; counts of symptoms that are in common for 2 given individuals; structural brain imaging). Increasingly, community detection methods are being used to subset the data in a data-driven manner. While many of these approaches perform well in simulation studies and thus offer some improvement upon traditional clustering approaches, there is no readily available approach for evaluating the robustness of these solutions in empirical data. Researchers have no way of knowing if their results are due to noise. We describe here 2 approaches novel to the field of psychology that enable evaluation of cluster solution robustness. This tutorial also explains the use of an associated R package, perturbR, which provides researchers with the ability to use the methods described herein. In the first approach, the cluster assignment from the original matrix is compared against cluster assignments obtained by randomly perturbing the edges in the matrix. Stable cluster solutions should not demonstrate large changes in the presence of small perturbations. For the second approach, Monte Carlo simulations of random matrices that have the same properties as the original matrix are generated. The distribution of quality scores ("modularity") obtained from the cluster solutions from these matrices are then compared with the score obtained from the original matrix results. From this, one can assess if the results are better than what would be expected by chance. perturbR automates these 2 methods, providing an easy-to-use resource for psychological researchers. We demonstrate the utility of this package using benchmark simulated data generated from a previous study and then apply the methods to publicly available empirical data obtained from social networks and structural neuroimaging. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

Cluster AnalysisData Interpretation, StatisticalAdultHumansMonte Carlo MethodNeuroimagingPsychologySocial Networking

Identifiers

PMID30742473
PMCPMC6689462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.