Title |
Dissecting trait heterogeneity: a comparison of three clustering methods applied to genotypic data
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2006
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-7-204 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Tricia A Thornton-Wells, Jason H Moore, Jonathan L Haines |
Abstract |
Trait heterogeneity, which exists when a trait has been defined with insufficient specificity such that it is actually two or more distinct traits, has been implicated as a confounding factor in traditional statistical genetics of complex human disease. In the absence of detailed phenotypic data collected consistently in combination with genetic data, unsupervised computational methodologies offer the potential for discovering underlying trait heterogeneity. The performance of three such methods--Bayesian Classification, Hypergraph-Based Clustering, and Fuzzy k-Modes Clustering--appropriate for categorical data were compared. Also tested was the ability of these methods to detect trait heterogeneity in the presence of locus heterogeneity and/or gene-gene interaction, which are two other complicating factors in discovering genetic models of complex human disease. To determine the efficacy of applying the Bayesian Classification method to real data, the reliability of its internal clustering metrics at finding good clusterings was evaluated using permutation testing. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 11% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
Chile | 1 | 3% |
France | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 30 | 79% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 29% |
Researcher | 5 | 13% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
Other | 6 | 16% |
Unknown | 6 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 24% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 21% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 13% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
Mathematics | 2 | 5% |
Other | 5 | 13% |
Unknown | 7 | 18% |