Correlation-based iterative clustering methods for time course data: The identification of temporal gene response modules for influenza infection in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many pragmatic clustering methods have been developed to group data vectors or objects into clusters so that the objects in one cluster are very similar and objects in different clusters are distinct based on some similarity measure. The availability of time course data has motivated researchers to develop methods, such as mixture and mixed-effects modelling approaches, that incorporate the temporal information contained in the shape of the trajectory of the data. However, there is still a need for the development of time-course clustering methods that can adequately deal with inhomogeneous clusters (some clusters are quite large and others are quite small). Here we propose two such methods, hierarchical clustering (IHC) and iterative pairwise-correlation clustering (IPC). We evaluate and compare the proposed methods to the Markov Cluster Algorithm (MCL) and the generalised mixed-effects model (GMM) using simulation studies and an application to a time course gene expression data set from a study containing human subjects who were challenged by a live influenza virus. We identify four types of temporal gene response modules to influenza infection in humans, i.e., single-gene modules (SGM), small-size modules (SSM), medium-size modules (MSM) and large-size modules (LSM). The LSM contain genes that perform various fundamental biological functions that are consistent across subjects. The SSM and SGM contain genes that perform either different or similar biological functions that have complex temporal responses to the virus and are unique to each subject. We show that the temporal response of the genes in the LSM have either simple patterns with a single peak or trough a consequence of the transient stimuli sustained or state-transitioning patterns pertaining to developmental cues and that these modules can differentiate the severity of disease outcomes. Additionally, the size of gene response modules follows a power-law distribution with a consistent exponent across all subjects, which reveals the presence of universality in the underlying biological principles that generated these modules.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".