The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Critical limitations of consensus clustering in class discovery
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Consensus clustering (CC) is an unsupervised class discovery method widely used to study sample heterogeneity in high-dimensional datasets. It calculates “consensus rate” between any two samples as how frequently they are grouped together in repeated clustering runs under a certain degree of random perturbation. The pairwise consensus rates form a between-sample similarity matrix, which has been used (1) as a visual proof that clusters exist, (2) for comparing stability among clusters, and (3) for estimating the optimal number (K) of clusters. However, the sensitivity and specificity of CC have not been systemically studied. To assess its performance, we investigated the most common implementations of CC; and compared CC with other popular methods that also focus on cluster stability and estimation of K. We evaluated these methods using simulated datasets with either known structure or known absence of structure. Our results showed that (1) CC was able to divide randomly generated unimodal data into pre-specified numbers of clusters, and was able to show apparent stability of these chance partitions of known cluster-less data; (2) for data with known structure, the proportion of ambiguously clustered (PAC) pairs infers the known number of clusters more reliably than several commonly used K estimating methods; and (3) validation of the optimal K by choosing the most discriminant genes from the discovery cohort and applying them in an independent cohort often exaggerates the confidence in K due to inherent gene-gene correlations among the selected genes. While these results do not yet prove that any of the published studies using CC has generated false positive findings, they show that datasets with subtle or no structure are fully capable of producing strong evidence of consensus clustering. We therefore recommend caution is using CC in class discovery and validation.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Modern Applied Statistics with S
Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2 · Cited by 24,305
Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis
Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987) · Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics · doi:10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7 · Cited by 21,392
Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours
The Cancer Genome Atlas Network (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11412 · Cited by 12,129
Distinct types of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma identified by gene expression profiling
Alizadeh, A. A., Eisen, M. B., Davis, R. E., Ma, C., Lossos, I. S., Rosenwald, A., Boldrick, J. C., Sabet, H., Tran, T., Yu, X., et al. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35000501 · Cited by 9,925
Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma
Perou, C. M. (2019) · Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) · doi:10.17615/hvp3-wg08 · Cited by 7,925
Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways
The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature07385 · Cited by 7,735
Verhaak, R. G. W., Hoadley, K. A., Purdom, E., Wang, V., Qi, Y., Wilkerson, M. D., Miller, C. R., Ding, L., Golub, T., Mesirov, J. P., et al. (2010) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2009.12.020 · Cited by 7,575
Estimating the Number of Clusters in a Data Set Via the Gap Statistic
Tibshirani, R., Walther, G., & Hastie, T. (2001) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00293 · Cited by 6,205
Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma
The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, & Levine, D. A. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12113 · Cited by 5,784
The Somatic Genomic Landscape of Glioblastoma
Brennan, C. W., Verhaak, R. G. W., McKenna, A., Campos, B., Noushmehr, H., Salama, S. R., Zheng, S., Chakravarty, D., Sanborn, J. Z., Berman, S. H., et al. (2013) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2013.09.034 · Cited by 5,016
Cited by
Liu, Z., Liu, L., Weng, S., Guo, C., Dang, Q., Xu, H., Wang, L., Lu, T., Zhang, Y., Sun, Z., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28421-6 · Cited by 843
Characterizing genetic intra-tumor heterogeneity across 2,658 human cancer genomes
Dentro, S. C., Leshchiner, I., Haase, K., Tarabichi, M., Wintersinger, J., Deshwar, A. G., Yu, K., Rubanova, Y., Macintyre, G., Demeulemeester, J., et al. (2021) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.009 · Cited by 533
Multiplexed Profiling of Single Extracellular Vesicles
Lee, K., Fraser, K., Ghaddar, B., Yang, K., Kim, E., Balaj, L., Chiocca, E. A., Breakefield, X. O., Lee, H., & Weissleder, R. (2018) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/acsnano.7b07060 · Cited by 369
Blind PRNU-Based Image Clustering for Source Identification
Marra, F., Poggi, G., Sansone, C., & Verdoliva, L. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2017.2701335 · Cited by 84
MOGSA: Integrative Single Sample Gene-set Analysis of Multiple Omics Data
(2019) · doi:10.1074/mcp.tir118.001251 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Șenbabaoğlu, Y., Michailidis, G., & Li, J. Z.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2014-08-27
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6207-6207
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2025303952
- Cited by
- 379
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 10.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Critical limitations of consensus clustering in class discovery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/srep06207
- The paper
- Șenbabaoğlu, Y., Michailidis, G., & Li, J. Z. (2014). Critical limitations of consensus clustering in class discovery. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06207
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
