Are clusterings of multiple data views independent?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Pioneer 100 (P100) Wellness Project, multiple types of data are collected on a single set of healthy participants at multiple timepoints in order to characterize and optimize wellness. One way to do this is to identify clusters, or subgroups, among the participants, and then to tailor personalized health recommendations to each subgroup. It is tempting to cluster the participants using all of the data types and timepoints, in order to fully exploit the available information. However, clustering the participants based on multiple data views implicitly assumes that a single underlying clustering of the participants is shared across all data views. If this assumption does not hold, then clustering the participants using multiple data views may lead to spurious results. In this article, we seek to evaluate the assumption that there is some underlying relationship among the clusterings from the different data views, by asking the question: are the clusters within each data view dependent or independent? We develop a new test for answering this question, which we then apply to clinical, proteomic, and metabolomic data, across two distinct timepoints, from the P100 study. We find that while the subgroups of the participants defined with respect to any single data type seem to be dependent across time, the clustering among the participants based on one data type (e.g. proteomic data) appears not to be associated with the clustering based on another data type (e.g. clinical data).
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 | 0.134 | 0.391 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".