↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Clustering Methods for Investigation of Genome-Wide Methylation Array Data

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Comparison of Clustering Methods for Investigation of Genome-Wide Methylation Array Data
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2011.00088
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harry Clifford, Frank Wessely, Satish Pendurthi, Richard D. Emes

Abstract

The use of genome-wide methylation arrays has proved very informative to investigate both clinical and biological questions in human epigenomics. The use of clustering methods either for exploration of these data or to compare to an a priori grouping, e.g., normal versus disease allows assessment of groupings of data without user bias. However no consensus on the methods to use for clustering of methylation array approaches has been reached. To determine the most appropriate clustering method for analysis of illumina array methylation data, a collection of data sets was simulated and used to compare clustering methods. Both hierarchical clustering and non-hierarchical clustering methods (k-means, k-medoids, and fuzzy clustering algorithms) were compared using a range of distance and linkage methods. As no single method consistently outperformed others across different simulations, we propose a method to capture the best clustering outcome based on an additional measure, the silhouette width. This approach produced a consistently higher cluster accuracy compared to using any one method in isolation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Uruguay 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 90 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 12%
Engineering 7 7%
Computer Science 5 5%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 26 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,241,801
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#5,367
of 11,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,041
of 180,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#33
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,727 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 180,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.