The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation and comparison of gene clustering methods in microarray analysis
Open accessAbstract
Motivation: Microarray technology has been widely applied in biological and clinical studies for simultaneous monitoring of gene expression in thousands of genes. Gene clustering analysis is found useful for discovering groups of correlated genes potentially co-regulated or associated to the disease or conditions under investigation. Many clustering methods including hierarchical clustering, K-means, PAM, SOM, mixture model-based clustering and tight clustering have been widely used in the literature. Yet no comprehensive comparative study has been performed to evaluate the effectiveness of these methods. Results: In this paper, six gene clustering methods are evaluated by simulated data from a hierarchical log-normal model with various degrees of perturbation as well as four real datasets. A weighted Rand index is proposed for measuring similarity of two clustering results with possible scattered genes (i.e. a set of noise genes not being clustered). Performance of the methods in the real data is assessed by a predictive accuracy analysis through verified gene annotations. Our results show that tight clustering and model-based clustering consistently outperform other clustering methods both in simulated and real data while hierarchical clustering and SOM perform among the worst. Our analysis provides deep insight to the complicated gene clustering problem of expression profile and serves as a practical guideline for routine microarray cluster analysis. Contact: ctseng@pitt.edu Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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
Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns
Eisen, M. B., Spellman, P. T., Brown, P. O., & Botstein, D. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.25.14863 · Cited by 16,184
Hubert, L., & Arabie, P. (1985) · Journal of Classification · doi:10.1007/bf01908075 · Cited by 8,219
Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis
Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (1990) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316801 · Cited by 7,344
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
Monti, S., Tamayo, P., Mesirov, J., & Golub, T. (2003) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1023949509487 · Cited by 2,116
Cited by
Defining clusters from a hierarchical cluster tree: the Dynamic Tree Cut package for R
Langfelder, P., Zhang, B., & Horvath, S. (2008) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm563 · Cited by 1,892
George, S., Xia, T., Rallo, R., Zhao, Y., Ji, Z., Lin, S., Wang, X., Zhang, H., France, B., Schoenfeld, D., et al. (2011) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/nn102734s · Cited by 326
Exploration of bacterial community classes in major human habitats
Zhou, Y., Mihindukulasuriya, K. A., Gao, H., La Rosa, P. S., Wylie, K. M., Martin, J. C., Kota, K., Shannon, W. D., Mitreva, M., Sodergren, E., et al. (2014) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2014-15-5-r66 · Cited by 149
The Impact of Random Models on Clustering Similarity
Gates, A. J., & Ahn, Y.-Y. (2017) · doi:10.1101/196840 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Thalamuthu, A., Mukhopadhyay, I., Zheng, X., & Tseng, G. C.
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-07-31
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 2405-2412
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- OpenAlex
- W2140736261
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 8.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Evaluation and comparison of gene clustering methods in microarray analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl406
- The paper
- Thalamuthu, A., Mukhopadhyay, I., Zheng, X., & Tseng, G. C. (2006). Evaluation and comparison of gene clustering methods in microarray analysis. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl406
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.