NMR metabolic analysis of samples using fuzzy K‐means clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global analysis of metabolites can be used to define the phenotypes of cells, tissues or organisms. Classifying groups of samples based on their metabolic profile is one of the main topics of metabolomics research. Crisp clustering methods assign each feature to one cluster, thereby omitting information about the multiplicity of sample subtypes. Here, we present the application of fuzzy K-means clustering method for the classification of samples based on metabolomics 1D (1)H NMR fingerprints. The sample classification was performed on NMR spectra of cancer cell line extracts and of urine samples of type 2 diabetes patients and animal models. The cell line dataset included NMR spectra of lipophilic cell extracts for two normal and three cancer cell lines with cancer cell lines including two invasive and one non-invasive cancers. The second dataset included previously published NMR spectra of urine samples of human type 2 diabetics and healthy controls, mouse wild type and diabetes model and rat obese and lean phenotypes. The fuzzy K-means clustering method allowed more accurate sample classification in both datasets relative to the other tested methods including principal component analysis (PCA), hierarchical clustering (HCL) and K-means clustering. In the cell line samples, fuzzy clustering provided a clear separation of individual cell lines, groups of cancer and normal cell lines as well as non-invasive and invasive tumour cell lines. In the diabetes dataset, clear separation of healthy controls and diabetics in all three models was possible only by using the fuzzy clustering method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".