Cited by 2,116Gene expression and cancer classificationAdvanced Clustering Algorithms ResearchBayesian Methods and Mixture Models

Consensus Clustering: A Resampling-Based Method for Class Discovery and Visualization of Gene Expression Microarray Data

Open access
Monti, Stefano, Tamayo, Pablo, Mesirov, Jill, Golub, Todd·2003·Machine Learning

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1023949509487

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Consensus clustering identified five major proteomic subtypes in the tumor cohort, with 15, 9, 25, 11, and 19 cases in subtypes A through E.

    “Using the Consensus Clustering24 method (Supplementary Methods 9.1–9.2, Extended Data Fig. 9), we identified five major proteomic subtypes in this tumor cohort, with 15, 9, 25, 11, and 19 cases in subtypes A through E, respectively (Fig. 4a–b).”
  • We previously identified three robust and reproducible transcriptomic sub-groups of KRAS-mutant LUAD by applying non-negative matrix factorization consensus clustering to RNASeq data from 68 tumors from TCGA.

    “We previously identified three robust and reproducible transcriptomic sub-groups of KRAS-mutant LUAD by applying non-negative matrix factorization consensus clustering81–83 to RNASeq data from 68 tumors from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset67.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cowell, F. A. (1995). Measuring Inequality. New York: Prentice Hall.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Monti, S., Tamayo, P., Mesirov, J., & Golub, T.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Machine Learning
Published
2003-07
Volume
52
Issue
1-2
Pages
91-118
ISSN
  • 0885-6125 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0565
OpenAlex
W1548779692
Cited by
2,116
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 134 · 2025: 113 · 2024: 155 · 2023: 133 · 2022: 139 · 2021: 192 · 2020: 123 · 2019: 112 · 2018: 120 · 2017: 100 · 2016: 85 · 2015: 94 · 2014: 78 · 2013: 77 · 2012: 80
FWCI
8.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Machine Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Clustering Algorithms Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Keywords
consensus clustering, gene expression microarrays, cluster validation, cluster stability, resampling, cluster visualization, optimal number of clusters, K-means clustering, self-organizing maps, Bayesian clustering, sensitivity to initial conditions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review