Skip to main content

Table 1 Clustering methods’ performance comparison

From: UNCLES: method for the identification of genes differentially consistently co-expressed in a specific subset of datasets

C GS UNCLES versus closest competitor* Most separated pair of other methods*
C1 1,200 −0.81 ± 0.15 (9.3 × 10−61) [HC] −0.13 ± 0.17 (1.5 × 10−10) [HC, RV]
  2,000 −0.88 ± 0.17 (7.3 × 10−55) [HC] −0.15 ± 0.18 (1.7 × 10−11) [HC, RV]
  3,000 −0.93 ± 0.15 (1.6 × 10−68) [HC] −0.12 ± 0.16 (2.5 × 10−11) [SOMs, RV]
  5,000 −0.92 ± 0.15 (7.6 × 10−66) [HC] −0.09 ± 0.14 (1.9 × 10−8) [SOMs, RV]
  7,000 −0.77 ± 0.15 (3.6 × 10−54) [SOMs] −0.08 ± 0.12 (2.9 × 10−9) [SOMs, RV]
C2 1,200 −0.93 ± 0.15 (<10−255) [SOMs] −0.04 ± 0.14 (5.8 × 10−7) [SOMs, RV]
  2,000 −0.92 ± 0.17 (<10−255) [HC] −0.04 ± 0.12 (5.0 × 10−7) [HC, RV]
  3,000 −0.60 ± 0.15 (6.3 × 10−244) [HC] −0.03 ± 0.11 (6.7 × 10−5) [HC, RV]
  5,000 −0.55 ± 0.13 (1.1 × 10−234) [HC] −0.02 ± 0.09 (2.0 × 10−4) [HC, RV]
  7,000 −0.48 ± 0.13 (4.8 × 10−219) [HC] −0.02 ± 0.09 (1.3 × 10−3) [HC, RV]
  1. *The format of the entries in these two columns is: μ ± σ (p-value) [method(s)]. The closest competitor to UNCLES is the one with the largest p-value while the most significantly separated pair of other clustering methods is the pair with the smallest p-value. See Methods for details
Back to article page

BMC Bioinformatics

ISSN: 1471-2105

Contact us