↓ Skip to main content

Multi-Scale Clustering by Building a Robust and Self Correcting Ultrametric Topology on Data Points

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multi-Scale Clustering by Building a Robust and Self Correcting Ultrametric Topology on Data Points
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0056259
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hsieh Fushing, Hui Wang, Kimberly VanderWaal, Brenda McCowan, Patrice Koehl

Abstract

The advent of high-throughput technologies and the concurrent advances in information sciences have led to an explosion in size and complexity of the data sets collected in biological sciences. The biggest challenge today is to assimilate this wealth of information into a conceptual framework that will help us decipher biological functions. A large and complex collection of data, usually called a data cloud, naturally embeds multi-scale characteristics and features, generically termed geometry. Understanding this geometry is the foundation for extracting knowledge from data. We have developed a new methodology, called data cloud geometry-tree (DCG-tree), to resolve this challenge. This new procedure has two main features that are keys to its success. Firstly, it derives from the empirical similarity measurements a hierarchy of clustering configurations that captures the geometric structure of the data. This hierarchy is then transformed into an ultrametric space, which is then represented via an ultrametric tree or a Parisi matrix. Secondly, it has a built-in mechanism for self-correcting clustering membership across different tree levels. We have compared the trees generated with this new algorithm to equivalent trees derived with the standard Hierarchical Clustering method on simulated as well as real data clouds from fMRI brain connectivity studies, cancer genomics, giraffe social networks, and Lewis Carroll's Doublets network. In each of these cases, we have shown that the DCG trees are more robust and less sensitive to measurement errors, and that they provide a better quantification of the multi-scale geometric structures of the data. As such, DCG-tree is an effective tool for analyzing complex biological data sets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
United States 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 22%
Student > Master 9 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 22%
Psychology 8 14%
Computer Science 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Other 18 31%
Unknown 10 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2013.
All research outputs
#14,162,589
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#115,762
of 193,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,486
of 287,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,866
of 5,158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,465 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.