↓ Skip to main content

Classification of bioinformatics workflows using weighted versions of partitioning and hierarchical clustering algorithms

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Classification of bioinformatics workflows using weighted versions of partitioning and hierarchical clustering algorithms
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0508-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Etienne Lord, Abdoulaye Baniré Diallo, Vladimir Makarenkov

Abstract

Workflows, or computational pipelines, consisting of collections of multiple linked tasks are becoming more and more popular in many scientific fields, including computational biology. For example, simulation studies, which are now a must for statistical validation of new bioinformatics methods and software, are frequently carried out using the available workflow platforms. Workflows are typically organized to minimize the total execution time and to maximize the efficiency of the included operations. Clustering algorithms can be applied either for regrouping similar workflows for their simultaneous execution on a server, or for dispatching some lengthy workflows to different servers, or for classifying the available workflows with a view to performing a specific keyword search. In this study, we consider four different workflow encoding and clustering schemes which are representative for bioinformatics projects. Some of them allow for clustering workflows with similar topological features, while the others regroup workflows according to their specific attributes (e.g. associated keywords) or execution time. The four types of workflow encoding examined in this study were compared using the weighted versions of k-means and k-medoids partitioning algorithms. The Calinski-Harabasz, Silhouette and logSS clustering indices were considered. Hierarchical classification methods, including the UPGMA, Neighbor Joining, Fitch and Kitsch algorithms, were also applied to classify bioinformatics workflows. Moreover, a novel pairwise measure of clustering solution stability, which can be computed in situations when a series of independent program runs is carried out, was introduced. Our findings based on the analysis of 220 real-life bioinformatics workflows suggest that the weighted clustering models based on keywords information or tasks execution times provide the most appropriate clustering solutions. Using datasets generated by the Armadillo and Taverna scientific workflow management system, we found that the weighted cosine distance in association with the k-medoids partitioning algorithm and the presence-absence workflow encoding provided the highest values of the Rand index among all compared clustering strategies. The introduced clustering stability indices, PS and PSG, can be effectively used to identify elements with a low clustering support.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 29%
Computer Science 11 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Mathematics 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 6 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2015.
All research outputs
#12,918,641
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#3,785
of 7,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,540
of 256,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#63
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,280 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 256,959 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.