Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34909208›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2021

CLARITY: comparing heterogeneous data using dissimilarity.

Daniel J Lawson, Vinesh Solanki, Igor Yanovich, Johannes Dellert, Damian Ruck, Phillip Endicott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Daniel J LawsonInstitute of Statistical Sciences, School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5311-6213
Vinesh SolankiIndependent researcher, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Igor YanovichSeminar für Sprachwissenschaft; DFG Center 'Words, Bones, Genes, Tools', University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Johannes DellertSeminar für Sprachwissenschaft; DFG Center 'Words, Bones, Genes, Tools', University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Damian RuckDepartment of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8678-8852
Phillip EndicottUnité Eco-Anthropologie (EA), Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 17 place du Trocadero, Paris 75016, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Integrating datasets from different disciplines is hard because the data are often qualitatively different in meaning, scale and reliability. When two datasets describe the same entities, many scientific questions can be phrased around whether the (dis)similarities between entities are conserved across such different data. Our method, CLARITY, quantifies consistency across datasets, identifies where inconsistencies arise and aids in their interpretation. We illustrate this using three diverse comparisons: gene methylation versus expression, evolution of language sounds versus word use, and country-level economic metrics versus cultural beliefs. The non-parametric approach is robust to noise and differences in scaling, and makes only weak assumptions about how the data were generated. It operates by decomposing similarities into two components: a 'structural' component analogous to a clustering, and an underlying 'relationship' between those structures. This allows a 'structural comparison' between two similarity matrices using their predictability from 'structure'. Significance is assessed with the help of re-sampling appropriate for each dataset. The software, CLARITY, is available as an R package from github.com/danjlawson/CLARITY.

Indexed as

comparitive statisticslinguisticsvisualization

Identifiers

PMID34909208
PMCPMC8652278

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.