Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Simultaneous Estimation of Number of Clusters and Feature Sparsity in Clustering High-Dimensional Data

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a single resampling score, S4, can simultaneously estimate the number of clusters $K$ and the feature-sparsity parameter $\lambda$ in sparse K-means, performing among the best existing estimators for $K$ in low…

desk verdict A useful resampling score for joint K and lambda selection in sparse K-means, but the empirical claims are oversold and the evaluation needs independent tuning and full implementation details. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01930 v1 pith:5JA5PVES submitted 2019-09-04 stat.ME

Yujia Li , Xiangrui Zeng , Chien-Wei Lin , George Tseng This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62H30
keywords numberofclustersfeatureselectionsparseK-meansresamplingstabilityYoudenindexhigh-dimensionalclustering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes S4, a resampling-based score that estimates the number of clusters $K$ for K-means and, in a two-stage extension, estimates both $K$ and the feature-sparsity parameter $\lambda$ for sparse K-means. The score judges a candidate $(K, \lambda)$ by how well repeated subsample clusterings agree with the full-data clustering, combining sensitivity and specificity into a per-subject Youden index and trimming the most unstable subjects. The authors' central claim is that this one procedure performs among the best existing $K$ estimators across ten low-dimensional simulation settings, and outperforms bivariate gap statistic and prediction strength at joint $K$-and-$\lambda$ estimation in high-dimensional simulations with independent and correlated features. On nine real datasets (microarray, RNA-seq, SNP, and two non-omics sets), they report that S4 recovers the correct or closest cluster number in almost all cases while selecting fewer predictive genes at equal or better clustering accuracy. If true, this gives practitioners a single automatic choice of $K$ and $\lambda$ instead of the current two-step practice of estimating $K$ and then tuning $\lambda$ separately.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the per-subject concordance score $S_i(K)$ defined in Eq. (4): with $T$ the $n \times n$ co-membership matrix from clustering the full data and $\bar{T}^{(sub)}$ the element-wise average of $B$ subsample co-membership matrices, $S_i(K) = (\text{mean of } \bar{T}^{(sub)}_{ij} \text{ over } j \text{ with } T_{ij}=1) + (\text{mean of } (1-\bar{T}^{(sub)}_{ij}) \text{ over } j \text{ with } T_{ij}=0) - 1$. This is the Youden index (sensitivity + specificity − 1) of a dichotomous diagnostic test, with the full-data partition cast as truth. The score becomes a $K$ selector through a trimmed mean $S^*_\rho(K)$ that iteratively removes the lowest-scoring $\rho = 5\%$ of subjects, protecting against scattered points. For sparse K-means, a second Youden-type score $F(K, \lambda)$ checks stability of the selected-feature set, and a two-stage rule first maximizes $S^*$ over $(K, \lambda)$ and then, with $K$ fixed, maximizes $S^* + F$ to choose $\lambda$; a bisection grid over $\lambda$ spaced by log-scaled numbers of selected features keeps the search affordable.

What would settle it

Run S4 on a benchmark with $K = 3$ where full-data K-means has two nearly equal local optima at $K = 3$ (for example, symmetric clusters with label switching across restarts); if $S^*_\rho$ is maximized at a $K$ other than 3 in most replicates, the assumption that the full-data co-membership matrix is a trustworthy reference fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

S4's central claim is that the right number of clusters, and in sparse K-means the right sparsity level, are the values at which the full-data partition is most reproducible under subsampling. Formally, for each subject $i$ the score $S_i(K)$ treats the full-data co-membership matrix $T$ as the reference and the average of $B$ subsample co-membership matrices as the test result: it averages the subsample co-membership rates over subjects that $T$ puts in the same cluster as $i$ (sensitivity), averages the subsample non-co-membership rates over subjects that $T$ separates from $i$ (specificity), and subtracts one, the Youden index. The trimmed mean $S^*_\rho(K)$ over the best $100-\rho$ percent of subjects removes scattered points, and $K$ is chosen to maximize it. For sparse K-means, a parallel feature concordance score $F(K, \lambda)$ measures whether the set of nonzero feature weights is also stable, and $\lambda$ is chosen, after $K$ is fixed, by maximizing $S^* + F$. The paper's evidence is simulation across well-separated, overlapping, null, independent-feature and correlated-gene settings, plus nine real datasets; its stated conclusion is that S4 is the only method that generally performs among the top in all low-dimensional settings and universally achieves better clustering accuracy and feature selection in high-dimensional comparisons.

Load-bearing premise

The method's score treats the full-data clustering as the ground truth; if that clustering itself is unstable or trapped in a local optimum, the score measures consistency with an arbitrary reference, and the method's validity depends on K-means at the true $K$ being stable and representative under subsampling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In low-dimensional K-means problems, S4 is claimed to be among the top performers across all ten simulation settings, including overlapping and null-data cases where gap-statistic variants fail.
  • In high-dimensional sparse K-means, S4 is claimed to achieve higher adjusted Rand index for clustering, higher Jaccard index for feature selection, and lower root-mean-squared error for $K$ than bivariate gap statistic and prediction strength, with the largest gains when few informative features or weak correlation are present.
  • In real applications, S4 recovers the correct or closest $K$ in almost all nine datasets and selects fewer predictive genes than gap statistic or prediction strength at equal or better clustering accuracy.
  • With S4, users can estimate $K$ and $\lambda$ in one pass rather than estimating $K$ first and then tuning $\lambda$ by a separate gap-statistic step, removing a subjective two-stage decision.
  • The authors argue that the same stability rationale can be carried to other sparse clustering engines, such as sparse Gaussian mixture and sparse Poisson mixture models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct consequence the authors do not spell out: the S4 curve itself is a reproducibility diagnostic, so uniformly low $S^*$ across all $K$ would signal that no stable cluster structure exists, not just that $K$ is hard to choose.
  • The two-stage ordering suggests a broader tuning principle for joint discrete and continuous parameters in unsupervised learning, namely to fix the discrete structure by a stability criterion before tuning a continuous penalty, which could transfer to other regularized clustering or latent-variable models.
  • Because S4 only requires a co-membership matrix and a selected-feature indicator, it could be tested on other clustering algorithms with built-in sparsity, such as sparse Gaussian or Poisson mixtures, and on non-Euclidean dissimilarities, even though the paper only demonstrates K-means and sparse K-means.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes S4, a resampling-based stability score for estimating the number of clusters K in K-means and, in sparse K-means, for simultaneously estimating K and the feature-sparsity parameter λ. The score compares the full-data co-membership matrix T with the averaged co-membership matrix over repeated subsamples, defining per-subject sensitivity and specificity terms (a Youden index) and then averaging after trimming the lowest ρ% of subject scores. For simultaneous (K, λ) selection, a feature-selection concordance score F is added, with K chosen from the clustering score alone and λ chosen from the sum of the clustering and feature scores. The authors also extend the gap statistic and prediction strength to the joint (K, λ) setting, evaluate S4 on ten low-dimensional K-means settings, on sparse K-means simulations with independent and correlated features, and on nine real datasets. The paper claims that S4 performs among the best in estimating K and that it outperforms the extended gap statistic and prediction strength in high-dimensional clustering and feature selection.

Significance. The topic is timely and the claimed contribution is useful: a single automatic choice of K and λ for sparse K-means would fill a real gap, and the paper provides a concrete criterion, an efficient bisection grid for λ, extensions of two benchmark methods, and an unusually broad simulation and real-data evaluation. If the empirical claims withstand scrutiny, S4 could become a practical default for exploratory high-dimensional clustering. I also credit the authors for explicitly discussing two limitations and for reporting runtime information. However, the central comparative claim is weakened by post hoc selection of the trimming parameter ρ on the same simulation settings later used for evaluation, by an unspecified subsampling fraction f, by an unsupported null threshold s0, and by at least one headline statement that the paper's own tables contradict. The conceptual reliance of the score on treating the full-data clustering as truth is acknowledged in the text but its implications for the method's validity are not addressed. No code or reproducibility package is provided, which matters for a method whose practical use depends on several free parameters.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5.1, Tables 2 and 3] The choice ρ = 5 is selected on the same ten simulation settings that are later used to evaluate S4. The text states that Table 2 is a sensitivity analysis of ρ on settings 1–10 and then says 'we set ρ = 5 in all comparisons' and 'throughout this paper'; Table 3 then reports S4's performance on the same ten settings with ρ = 5. The comparison in Table 3 is therefore post-selection: the reported advantage of S4 may reflect tuning to the benchmark rather than a property of a fixed method. The authors should either validate ρ on independent settings (for example, by a nested split of the simulation settings into tuning and evaluation sets), report results across ρ to show that the qualitative conclusions are insensitive, or clearly present ρ as a tuned parameter with the associated optimism in the reported numbers.
  2. [§5.1, Table 3 and Section 1] The claim that 'S4 is the only method that generally performs among the top in all settings' is not supported by the paper's own Table 3. In setting 4, S4 selects the correct K in 78 of 100 runs while H, KL, and Gap/Unif select correct K in 98, 94, and 93 runs respectively; in setting 5, S4's 91 is below Gap/PCA, CH, FW, and LD, all at 100; in setting 8, S4's 79 is below Jump (90), silhouette (93), and FW (94); and in setting 10, S4's 4 is the second-worst, above only H's 0 and below PS (15) and LD (16). The authors should either revise this claim to a more precise statement about overall performance or define explicitly what 'among the top' means and show that S4 satisfies that definition in every row.
  3. [§3, Step 1 and all simulations] The subsampling fraction f is never specified. Step 1 states only that subsamples have size f×n with 0 < f < 1, and no simulation or real-data section reports the value of f used. Since the S4 score in Eq. (4), the trimmed mean, and the feature concordance score all depend on f, the results are not reproducible as stated. The authors should report the f used in every experiment and provide a sensitivity analysis for f, given that the subsample size directly affects the stability of the co-membership estimates.
  4. [§3, Step 5 and Table 3, setting 1] The null-data threshold s0 = 0.8 is asserted without any sensitivity analysis. The algorithm returns K = 1 when Smax < s0, and the null-detection performance in setting 1 of Table 3 depends directly on this number. The choice of s0 is not derived from data or theory, and no results are shown for nearby thresholds. The authors should either justify s0 empirically across settings or report the sensitivity of the null-detection and K-selection results to s0.
  5. [§3, Eq. (4) and Section 7] The S4 score treats the full-data clustering co-membership matrix T as the underlying truth when defining sensitivity and specificity. As the paper acknowledges, this is an internal reference for a stability heuristic, but the practical validity of S4 as an estimator of the true K relies on the assumption that K-means at the candidate K is stable and representative under subsampling. If the full-data clustering is itself a local optimum or an unstable partition, the score measures self-consistency with an arbitrary reference. The authors should state this assumption more carefully and provide a diagnostic or additional experiment, for example, comparing S4's selected K when the full-data clustering is obtained from multiple random restarts, to show that the score is not driven by a single unstable K-means run.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.1, paragraph after Table 3] The sentence 'silhouette performs better in settings 6 ∼10 but not settings 6∼10' is self-contradictory; the second range should presumably be settings 1–5.
  2. [§4.2, S4 paragraph] The text says Si(K, λ) is calculated 'by equation (3) in Section 3', but the subject concordance score is defined in Eq. (4); Eq. (3) defines only the co-membership matrix T. Please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [§5.3, Simulation III, step 2] The abbreviation 'POI (20)' is never defined; if it denotes a Poisson distribution, please write Poisson(20) or define the abbreviation.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors that should be corrected in revision, including 'interger' (Step 1), 'caluclate' (§4.2), 'nave' (§4.2), 'noth' (§6.2.4), 'timmed' (Supplement captions), and 'SConsidering' in the S4 name in Section 1.
  5. [§5.1, text before Table 2] The reference to 'toy examples in Figure ??' is unresolved; it should point to Figure S2 or another specific figure.
  6. [General reproducibility] No code, package, or data-availability statement is provided. Given the method's reliance on B, f, ρ, s0, and the λ-grid construction, a reproducible implementation would substantially strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

S4's low-dimensional benchmark advantage is partly post-selection: the trimming hyperparameter rho was tuned on the same ten simulation settings later used to declare S4 the top method.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1, 'Sensitivity analysis for trimmed mean in S4' paragraph and 'Comparison of ten methods in ten simulation settings' paragraph, Tables 2 and 3]
    "we perform a sensitivity analysis of different trimming parameter ρ = 0, 2, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20 by applying S4 to 10 simulation settings. We find that ρ = 2 ∼ 10 generally provide good performance and ρ = 5 seems to give the best overall estimation. Throughout this paper, we set ρ = 5 in all comparisons. ... S4 is the only method that generally performs among the top in all settings."

    Table 2 selects rho by inspecting S4's correct-K counts on the ten simulation settings, and the text then fixes rho = 5 'in all comparisons' because it gives the best overall estimation. Table 3 evaluates S4 against nine competitors on exactly the same ten settings with this chosen rho and uses those numbers to claim that S4 is 'the only method that generally performs among the top in all settings.' The benchmark verdict is therefore post-selection: the hyperparameter was tuned to the very cases used as evidence of superiority. The low-dimensional performance claim is not an independent evaluation of a fixed method, so the reported 'top performer' result is partly forced by the preceding sensitivity fit.

full rationale

The paper's core S4 score is a stability heuristic: it measures concordance between full-data K-means comembership T and averaged subsample comembership, treating T as an internal reference. That is a self-consistency criterion, not a circular derivation; K and lambda are not defined in terms of the fitted score in a way that makes the estimates equal to the inputs by construction. The high-dimensional sparse K-means simulations (Tables 4 and 5) and the nine real-data applications provide independent evidence for S4, and those comparisons are not directly tuned on the same response variable. However, the low-dimensional claim in Table 3 is weakened because the trimming proportion rho was chosen by inspecting correct-K counts on the same ten simulation settings used for the method comparison. This is a validation circularity rather than an equation-level equivalence. The self-citation to Tseng (2007) for the scattered-point motivation is not load-bearing because the paper supplies its own sensitivity analysis for trimming. Overall, no derivation reduces to its inputs, so the score is modest.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on stability assumptions and on K-means/sparse K-means behavior, plus two tuned constants and one unspecified subsampling fraction. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Trimming proportion rho = 5%
    Chosen after sensitivity analysis in Table 2; performance across the same 10 simulation settings used for final comparison, so the benchmark partially tunes this constant.
  • Null threshold s0 = 0.8
    Threshold below which S4 declares K=1; borrowed from prediction strength idea; no dedicated sensitivity analysis reported.
  • Subsampling fraction f = not specified in paper
    Step 1 of the S4 algorithm requires a fraction f but no value or default is given, which is a reproducibility gap.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pairwise co-membership stability under random subsampling is a valid proxy for the true number of clusters.
    Standard premise of resampling-based cluster validation; invoked in Section 3 and used as the optimization target.
  • domain assumption The full-data comembership matrix T(K) can be treated as the underlying truth when computing per-subject sensitivity and specificity.
    Stated explicitly before Eq. (4): 'If we treat the comembership matrix T as the underlying truth...'
  • domain assumption Sparse K-means with the L1-constrained weight objective of Witten and Tibshirani (2010) is a valid clustering model whose λ controls feature sparsity.
    Used as the clustering engine in Section 4.1; no new proof or modification is offered.
  • domain assumption K-means returns a representative full-data and subsample clustering; local optima and initialization are not separately addressed.
    The algorithm runs K-means without mentioning multiple starts; ties in S4 are resolved by choosing the larger K (Section 3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simultaneous Estimation of Number of Clusters and Feature Sparsity in Clustering High-Dimensional Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5JA5PVES

@misc{pith2026190901930,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simultaneous Estimation of Number of Clusters and Feature Sparsity in Clustering High-Dimensional Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5JA5PVES}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01930}
}
read the original abstract

Estimating the number of clusters (K) is a critical and often difficult task in cluster analysis. Many methods have been proposed to estimate K, including some top performers using resampling approach. When performing cluster analysis in high-dimensional data, simultaneous clustering and feature selection is needed for improved interpretation and performance. To our knowledge, none has investigated simultaneous estimation of K and feature selection in an exploratory cluster analysis. In this paper, we propose a resampling method to meet this gap and evaluate its performance under the sparse K-means clustering framework. The proposed target function balances between sensitivity and specificity of clustering evaluation of pairwise subjects from clustering of full and subsampled data. Through extensive simulations, the method performs among the best over classical methods in estimating K in low-dimensional data. For high-dimensional simulation data, it also shows superior performance to simultaneously estimate K and feature sparsity parameter. Finally, we evaluated the methods in four microarray, two RNA-seq, one SNP and two non-omics datasets. The proposed method achieves better clustering accuracy with fewer selected predictive genes in almost all real applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V., Van den Heuvel-Eibrink, M

    Balgobind, B. V., Van den Heuvel-Eibrink, M. M., Menezes, R. X., Reinhardt, D., Hollink, I. H., Peters, S. T., van Wering, E. R., Kaspers, G. J., Cloos, J., de Bont, E. S. M., et al. (2010). Evaluation of gene expression signatures predictive for cytogenetic and molecular subtypes of pediatric acute myeloid leukemia. haematologica , pages haematol--2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Banfield, J. D. and Raftery, A. E. (1993). Model-based gaussian and non-gaussian clustering. Biometrics , pages 803--821

    1993

  3. [3]

    Ben-Hur, A., Elisseeff, A., and Guyon, I. (2001). A stability based method for discovering structure in clustered data. In Biocomputing 2002 , pages 6--17. World Scientific

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    and Harabasz, J

    Cali \'n ski, T. and Harabasz, J. (1974). A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Communications in Statistics-theory and Methods , 3(1):1--27

    1974

  5. [5]

    Charrad, M., Ghazzali, N., Boiteau, V., Niknafs, A., and Charrad, M. M. (2014). Package 'nbclust'. Journal of Statistical Software , 61:1--36

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    and Karra Taniskidou, E

    Dheeru, D. and Karra Taniskidou, E. (2017). UCI machine learning repository

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    and Fridlyand, J

    Dudoit, S. and Fridlyand, J. (2002). A prediction-based resampling method for estimating the number of clusters in a dataset. Genome biology , 3(7):research0036--1

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    and Wang, J

    Fang, Y. and Wang, J. (2012). Selection of the number of clusters via the bootstrap method. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 56(3):468--477

    2012

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Hartigan, J. A. (1975). Clustering algorithms, new york: John willey and sons. Inc. Pages113129

    1975

  2. [10]

    and Arabie, P

    Hubert, L. and Arabie, P. (1985). Comparing partitions. Journal of classification , 2(1):193--218

    1985

  3. [11]

    Jaccard, P. (1901). Distribution de la flore alpine dans le bassin des dranses et dans quelques r \'e gions voisines. Bull Soc Vaudoise Sci Nat , 37:241--272

    1901

  4. [12]

    Johnson, S. C. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika , 32(3):241--254

    1967

  5. [13]

    and Rousseeuw, P

    Kaufman, L. and Rousseeuw, P. (1987). Clustering by means of medoids . North-Holland

    1987

  6. [14]

    J., Rassenti, L

    Kohlmann, A., Kipps, T. J., Rassenti, L. Z., Downing, J. R., Shurtleff, S. A., Mills, K. I., Gilkes, A. F., Hofmann, W.-K., Basso, G., Dell’Orto, M. C., et al. (2008). An international standardization programme towards the application of gene expression profiling in routine le...

    2008

  7. [15]

    Krzanowski, W. J. and Lai, Y. (1988). A criterion for determining the number of groups in a data set using sum-of-squares clustering. Biometrics , pages 23--34

    1988

  8. [16]

    L., and Buhmann, J

    Lange, T., Roth, V., Braun, M. L., and Buhmann, J. M. (2004). Stability-based validation of clustering solutions. Neural computation , 16(6):1299--1323

    2004

  9. [17]

    and Domany, E

    Levine, E. and Domany, E. (2001). Resampling method for unsupervised estimation of cluster validity. Neural computation , 13(11):2573--2593

    2001

  10. [18]

    D., Cao, J., Wang, S., Wang, J., Sarkar, S., Vigorito, M., Ma, J

    Li, M. D., Cao, J., Wang, S., Wang, J., Sarkar, S., Vigorito, M., Ma, J. Z., and Chang, S. L. (2013). Transcriptome sequencing of gene expression in the brain of the hiv-1 transgenic rat. PLoS One , 8(3):e59582

    2013

  11. [19]

    MacQueen, J. et al. (1967). Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability , volume 1, pages 281--297. Oakland, CA, USA

    1967

  12. [20]

    and Ramler, I

    Maitra, R. and Ramler, I. P. (2009). Clustering in the presence of scatter. Biometrics , 65(2):341--352

    2009

  13. [21]

    Mallah, C., Cope, J., and Orwell, J. (2013). Plant leaf classification using probabilistic integration of shape, texture and margin features. Signal Processing, Pattern Recognition and Applications , 5(1)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Milligan, G. W. and Cooper, M. C. (1985). An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika , 50(2):159--179

    1985

  15. [23]

    and Shen, X

    Pan, W. and Shen, X. (2007). Penalized model-based clustering with application to variable selection. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 8(May):1145--1164

    2007

  16. [24]

    Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987). Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of computational and applied mathematics , 20:53--65

    1987

  17. [25]

    I., Cooke, M

    Su, A. I., Cooke, M. P., Ching, K. A., Hakak, Y., Walker, J. R., Wiltshire, T., Orth, A. P., Vega, R. G., Sapinoso, L. M., Moqrich, A., et al. (2002). Large-scale analysis of the human and mouse transcriptomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 99(7):4465--4470

    2002

  18. [26]

    Sugar, C. A. and James, G. M. (2003). Finding the number of clusters in a dataset: An information-theoretic approach. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 98(463):750--763

    2003

  19. [27]

    and Walther, G

    Tibshirani, R. and Walther, G. (2005). Cluster validation by prediction strength. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 14(3):511--528

    2005

  20. [28]

    Tibshirani, R., Walther, G., and Hastie, T. (2001). Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 63(2):411--423

    2001

  21. [29]

    Troyanskaya, O., Cantor, M., Sherlock, G., Brown, P., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Botstein, D., and Altman, R. B. (2001). Missing value estimation methods for dna microarrays. Bioinformatics , 17(6):520--525

    2001

  22. [30]

    Tseng, G. C. (2007). Penalized and weighted k-means for clustering with scattered objects and prior information in high-throughput biological data. Bioinformatics , 23(17):2247--2255

    2007

  23. [31]

    G., Wouters, B

    Verhaak, R. G., Wouters, B. J., Erpelinck, C. A., Abbas, S., Beverloo, H. B., Lugthart, S., L \"o wenberg, B., Delwel, R., and Valk, P. J. (2009). Prediction of molecular subtypes in acute myeloid leukemia based on gene expression profiling. haematologica , 94(1):131--134

    2009

  24. [32]

    Witten, D. M. et al. (2011). Classification and clustering of sequencing data using a poisson model. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 5(4):2493--2518

    2011

  25. [33]

    Witten, D. M. and Tibshirani, R. (2010). A framework for feature selection in clustering. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 105(490):713--726

    2010

  26. [34]

    Witten, D. M. and Tibshirani, R. (2013). sparcl: Perform sparse hierarchical clustering and sparse k-means clustering. R package version , 1(3)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Youden, W. J. (1950). Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer , 3(1):32--35

    1950

  28. [36]

    Zhou, H., Pan, W., and Shen, X. (2009). Penalized model-based clustering with unconstrained covariance matrices. Electronic journal of statistics , 3:1473

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.