Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Many popular clustering methods are not scale-invariant because they are based on Euclidean distances. Even methods using scale-invariant distances, such as the Mahalanobis distance, lose their scale invariance when combined with regularization and/or variable selection. Therefore, the results from these methods are very sensitive to the measurement units of the clustering variables. A simple way to achieve scale invariance is to scale the variables before clustering. However, scaling variables is a very delicate issue in cluster analysis: A bad choice of scaling can adversely affect the clustering results. On the other hand, reporting clustering results that depend on measurement units is not satisfactory. Hence, a safe and efficient scaling procedure is needed for applications in bioinformatics and medical sciences research. RESULTS: We propose a new approach for scaling prior to cluster analysis based on the concept of pooled variance. Unlike available scaling procedures, such as the SD and the range, our proposed scale avoids dampening the beneficial effect of informative clustering variables. We confirm through an extensive simulation study and applications to well-known real-data examples that the proposed scaling method is safe and generally useful. Finally, we use our approach to cluster a high-dimensional genomic dataset consisting of gene expression data for several specimens of breast cancer cells tissue obtained from human patients. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: An R-implementation of the algorithms presented is available at https://wis.kuleuven.be/statdatascience/robust/software. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.018 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".