MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471404629 · doi:10.1109/embsisc.2016.7508616

A new clustering method using wavelet based probability density functions for identifying patterns in time-series data

2016· article· en· W2471404629 on OpenAlexaff
Mojtaba Kordestani, Abedalrhman Alkhateeb, Iman Rezaeian, Luis Rueda, Mehrdad Saif

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisPattern recognition (psychology)Probability density functionWaveletComputer scienceMixture modelHierarchical clusteringArtificial intelligenceThresholdingFeature (linguistics)Determining the number of clusters in a data setWavelet transformGaussianData miningCorrelation clusteringMathematicsCURE data clustering algorithmStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clustering is a prominent method to identify similar patterns in large groups of data and can be beneficial in the bioinformatics studies due to this property. Classical methods such as k-means and maximum likelihood consider a mixture of Gaussian probability density function (PDF) of data and find clusters based on maximizing the PDF. However, correlation among different groups of data and existence of noise on the data make it difficult to correctly detect the correct number of clusters. Furthermore, the assumption of the Gaussian distance for the PDF is not necessarily true in real applications. This paper presents a new clustering method via wavelet-based probability density functions. For this purpose, first, a mixture of PDFs is estimated by the wavelet for each feature. After this, a multilevel thresholding method is implemented on the mixture of PDFs of each feature to obtain the clusters. Finally, a forward feature selection with memory is used to cluster the dataset based on combinations of the features. The profile alignment and agglomerative clustering (PAAC) index is applied for evaluating the number of clusters and features. Transcript expression throughout the various stages of prostate cancer is considered as a case study to identify patterns. The experimental results show the ability of the proposed method in detecting patterns of similar transcripts throughout disease progression. The results are promising in comparison with the other methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207