ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2023
A scalable and unbiased discordance metric with H.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gene expression profiling enables refined parcellation of cortical layers in the heterogeneous human cerebral cortex.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- Spatio-molecular gene expression reflects dorsal anterior cingulate cortex structure and function in the human brain.Cell reports · 2026Article
- Spatially resolved molecular sex differences at single-cell resolution in the adult human ventromedial and arcuate hypothalamus.Cell reports · 2026Article
- A data-driven single-cell and spatial transcriptomic map of the human prefrontal cortex.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A standard unsupervised analysis is to cluster observations into discrete groups using a dissimilarity measure, such as Euclidean distance. If there does not exist a ground-truth label for each observation necessary for external validity metrics, then internal validity metrics, such as the tightness or separation of the clusters, are often used. However, the interpretation of these internal metrics can be problematic when using different dissimilarity measures as they have different magnitudes and ranges of values that they span. To address this problem, previous work introduced the "scale-agnostic" $G_{+}$ discordance metric; however, this internal metric is slow to calculate for large data. Furthermore, in the setting of unsupervised clustering with $k$ groups, we show that $G_{+}$ varies as a function of the proportion of observations assigned to each of the groups (or clusters), referred to as the group balance, which is an undesirable property. To address this problem, we propose a modification of $G_{+}$, referred to as $H_{+}$, and demonstrate that $H_{+}$ does not vary as a function of group balance using a simulation study and with public single-cell RNA-sequencing data. Finally, we provide scalable approaches to estimate $H_{+}$, which are available in the $\mathtt{fasthplus}$ R package.
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.