ArticlePloS one2019
Cluster analysis on high dimensional RNA-seq data with applications to cancer research - An evaluation study.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contextual evaluation of microRNA sequencing data harmonization for sample clustering.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Experimental Pain Phenotypes in Individuals With Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis: A Neural Network-Based Clustering Approach.Pain research & management · 2026Article
- Benchmarking of dimensionality reduction methods to capture drug response in transcriptome data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of agreement between common clustering strategies for DNA methylation-based subtyping of breast tumours.Epigenomics · 2025Article
- Omada: robust clustering of transcriptomes through multiple testing.GigaScience · 2024Article
- Pair bonding and disruption impact lung transcriptome in monogamous Peromyscus californicus.BMC genomics · 2023Article
- Article
- Visual Clustering of Transcriptomic Data from Primary and Metastatic Tumors-Dependencies and Novel Pitfalls.Genes · 2022Article
- A roadmap for multi-omics data integration using deep learning.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Review
- The Prognostic and Predictive Role of Xeroderma Pigmentosum Gene Expression in Melanoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- A systematic comparison of data- and knowledge-driven approaches to disease subtype discovery.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Identification of miR-203a, mir-10a, and miR-194 as predictors for risk of lymphovascular invasion in head and neck cancers.Oncotarget · 2021Article
- Article
- Dynamic changes in fibrinogen and D-dimer levels in COVID-19 patients on nafamostat mesylate.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2021Article
- MODEL-BASED FEATURE SELECTION AND CLUSTERING OF RNA-SEQ DATA FOR UNSUPERVISED SUBTYPE DISCOVERY.The annals of applied statistics · 2021Article
- Comparison of Methods for Feature Selection in Clustering of High-Dimensional RNA-Sequencing Data to Identify Cancer Subtypes.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
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 of gene expression data is widely used to identify novel subtypes of cancer. Plenty of clustering approaches have been proposed, but there is a lack of knowledge regarding their relative merits and how data characteristics influence the performance. We evaluate how cluster analysis choices affect the performance by studying four publicly available human cancer data sets: breast, brain, kidney and stomach cancer. In particular, we focus on how the sample size, distribution of subtypes and sample heterogeneity affect the performance.
resultsIn general, increasing the sample size had limited effect on the clustering performance, e.g. for the breast cancer data similar performance was obtained for n = 40 as for n = 330. The relative distribution of the subtypes had a noticeable effect on the ability to identify the disease subtypes and data with disproportionate cluster sizes turned out to be difficult to cluster. Both the choice of clustering method and selection method affected the ability to identify the subtypes, but the relative performance varied between data sets, making it difficult to rank the approaches. For some data sets, the performance was substantially higher when the clustering was based on data from only one sex compared to data from a mixed population. This suggests that homogeneous data are easier to cluster than heterogeneous data and that clustering males and females individually may be beneficial and increase the chance to detect novel subtypes. It was also observed that the performance often differed substantially between females and males.
conclusionsThe number of samples seems to have a limited effect on the performance while the heterogeneity, at least with respect to sex, is important for the performance. Hence, by analyzing the genders separately, the possible loss caused by having fewer samples could be outweighed by the benefit of a more homogeneous data.
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.