MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165213086 · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxj007

Hybrid hierarchical clustering with applications to microarray data

2005· article· en· W2165213086 on OpenAlexafffund
Hugh Chipman

Bibliographic record

VenueBiostatistics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCluster analysisComputer scienceHierarchical clusteringData miningSingle-linkage clusteringCorrelation clusteringIdentification (biology)Cluster (spacecraft)CURE data clustering algorithmConsensus clusteringBrown clusteringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a hybrid clustering method that combines the strengths of bottom-up hierarchical clustering with that of top-down clustering. The first method is good at identifying small clusters but not large ones; the strengths are reversed for the second method. The hybrid method is built on the new idea of a mutual cluster: a group of points closer to each other than to any other points. Theoretical connections between mutual clusters and bottom-up clustering methods are established, aiding in their interpretation and providing an algorithm for identification of mutual clusters. We illustrate the technique on simulated and real microarray datasets.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations161
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiostatisticsSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207