Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36738256›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2023

netANOVA: novel graph clustering technique with significance assessment via hierarchical ANOVA.

Diane Duroux, Kristel Van Steen

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Diane DurouxBIO3 - Systems Genetics, GIGA-R Medical Genomics, University of Liege, Liege, Belgium.
Kristel Van SteenBIO3 - Systems Genetics, GIGA-R Medical Genomics, University of Liege, Liege, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many problems in life sciences can be brought back to a comparison of graphs. Even though a multitude of such techniques exist, often, these assume prior knowledge about the partitioning or the number of clusters and fail to provide statistical significance of observed between-network heterogeneity. Addressing these issues, we developed an unsupervised workflow to identify groups of graphs from reliable network-based statistics. In particular, we first compute the similarity between networks via appropriate distance measures between graphs and use them in an unsupervised hierarchical algorithm to identify classes of similar networks. Then, to determine the optimal number of clusters, we recursively test for distances between two groups of networks. The test itself finds its inspiration in distance-wise ANOVA algorithms. Finally, we assess significance via the permutation of between-object distance matrices. Notably, the approach, which we will call netANOVA, is flexible since users can choose multiple options to adapt to specific contexts and network types. We demonstrate the benefits and pitfalls of our approach via extensive simulations and an application to two real-life datasets. NetANOVA achieved high performance in many simulation scenarios while controlling type I error. On non-synthetic data, comparison against state-of-the-art methods showed that netANOVA is often among the top performers. There are many application fields, including precision medicine, for which identifying disease subtypes via individual-level biological networks improves prevention programs, diagnosis and disease monitoring.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnalysis of VarianceCluster AnalysisComputer SimulationWorkflowGraph comparisonNetwork clusteringStratified medicineSystem medicine

Identifiers

PMID36738256
PMCPMC10025436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read19
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.