IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0029578.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unsupervised Analysis of Classical Biomedical Markers: Robustness and Medical Relevance of Patient Clustering Using Bioinformatics Tools

Author

Listed:
  • Michal Markovich Gordon
  • Asher M Moser
  • Eitan Rubin

Abstract

Motivation: It has been proposed that clustering clinical markers, such as blood test results, can be used to stratify patients. However, the robustness of clusters formed with this approach to data pre-processing and clustering algorithm choices has not been evaluated, nor has clustering reproducibility. Here, we made use of the NHANES survey to compare clusters generated with various combinations of pre-processing and clustering algorithms, and tested their reproducibility in two separate samples. Method: Values of 44 biomarkers and 19 health/life style traits were extracted from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The 1999–2002 survey was used for training, while data from the 2003–2006 survey was tested as a validation set. Twelve combinations of pre-processing and clustering algorithms were applied to the training set. The quality of the resulting clusters was evaluated both by considering their properties and by comparative enrichment analysis. Cluster assignments were projected to the validation set (using an artificial neural network) and enrichment in health/life style traits in the resulting clusters was compared to the clusters generated from the original training set. Results: The clusters obtained with different pre-processing and clustering combinations differed both in terms of cluster quality measures and in terms of reproducibility of enrichment with health/life style properties. Z-score normalization, for example, dramatically improved cluster quality and enrichments, as compared to unprocessed data, regardless of the clustering algorithm used. Clustering diabetes patients revealed a group of patients enriched with retinopathies. This could indicate that routine laboratory tests can be used to detect patients suffering from complications of diabetes, although other explanations for this observation should also be considered. Conclusions: Clustering according to classical clinical biomarkers is a robust process, which may help in patient stratification. However, optimization of the pre-processing and clustering process may be still required.

Suggested Citation

  • Michal Markovich Gordon & Asher M Moser & Eitan Rubin, 2012. "Unsupervised Analysis of Classical Biomedical Markers: Robustness and Medical Relevance of Patient Clustering Using Bioinformatics Tools," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-10, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0029578
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029578
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029578
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029578&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0029578?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Antonio Sarría-Santamera & Binur Orazumbekova & Tilektes Maulenkul & Abduzhappar Gaipov & Kuralay Atageldiyeva, 2020. "The Identification of Diabetes Mellitus Subtypes Applying Cluster Analysis Techniques: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-18, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0029578. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.