We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

Results: 4

1.
Figure 4

Figure 4. From: A systematic comparison of genome-scale clustering algorithms.

Average cluster size produced by each method. The number of clusters produced by each method at the optimal parameter settings for each size class is shown on a log10 scale.

Jeremy J Jay, et al. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012;13(Suppl 10):S7-S7.
2.
Figure 2

Figure 2. From: A systematic comparison of genome-scale clustering algorithms.

Algorithms ranked by prominent annotations. 112 annotations received a Jaccard score above 0.25. Each clustering method was ranked by the average of its highest Jaccard score for each of these annotations. (H) = Hierarchical agglomeration method.

Jeremy J Jay, et al. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012;13(Suppl 10):S7-S7.
3.
Figure 1

Figure 1. From: A systematic comparison of genome-scale clustering algorithms.

Algorithms ranked by best average top 5 clusters. BAT5 Jaccard values are shown for each clustering method and cluster size classification. (H) = Hierarchical clustering agglomeration method.

Jeremy J Jay, et al. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012;13(Suppl 10):S7-S7.
4.
Figure 3

Figure 3. From: A systematic comparison of genome-scale clustering algorithms.

Number of clusters produced by each method. The number of clusters produced by each method at the optimal parameter settings for each size class is displayed on a log10 scale. Note that some methods produced a single cluster for one or more of the size classes, which appears as absent on the graph. Maximal clique generated no clusters in the large size class, also showing as 0 on the graph.

Jeremy J Jay, et al. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012;13(Suppl 10):S7-S7.

Supplemental Content

Recent activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...
Write to the Help Desk