• Home
  • Search
  • SU‐E‐J‐98: Radiogenomics: Correspondence Between Imaging and Genetic Features Based On Clustering Analysis
  • https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4888150Copy DOI Icon

SU‐E‐J‐98: Radiogenomics: Correspondence Between Imaging and Genetic Features Based On Clustering Analysis

Show More
  • Abstract
  • Literature Map
  • Similar Papers
Abstract

Purpose:Radiogenomics aims to establish relationships between patient genotypes and imaging phenotypes. An open question remains on how best to integrate information from these distinct datasets. This work investigates if similarities in genetic features across patients correspond to similarities in PET‐imaging features, assessed with various clustering algorithms.Methods:[18F]FDG PET data was obtained for 26 NSCLC patients from a public database (TCIA). Tumors were contoured using an in‐house segmentation algorithm combining gradient and region‐growing techniques; resulting ROIs were used to extract 54 PET‐based features. Corresponding genetic microarray data containing 48,778 elements were also obtained for each tumor. Given mismatch in feature sizes, two dimension reduction techniques were also applied to the genetic data: principle component analysis (PCA) and selective filtering of 25 NSCLC‐associated genes‐ofinterest (GOI). Gene datasets (full, PCA, and GOI) and PET feature datasets were independently clustered using K‐means and hierarchical clustering using variable number of clusters (K). Jaccard Index (JI) was used to score similarity of cluster assignments across different datasets.Results:Patient clusters from imaging data showed poor similarity to clusters from gene datasets, regardless of clustering algorithms or number of clusters (JImean= 0.3429±0.1623). Notably, we found clustering algorithms had different sensitivities to data reduction techniques. Using hierarchical clustering, the PCA dataset showed perfect cluster agreement to the full‐gene set (JI =1) for all values of K, and the agreement between the GOI set and the full‐gene set decreased as number of clusters increased (JI=0.9231 and 0.5769 for K=2 and 5, respectively). K‐means clustering assignments were highly sensitive to data reduction and showed poor stability for different values of K (JIrange: 0.2301–1).Conclusion:Using commonly‐used clustering algorithms, we found poor agreement in patient characterization from genomic versus imaging data. Interpretation of radiogenomic associations was found to be dependent on clustering algorithms and sensitive to data reduction techniques.

Similar Papers
  • Research Article
  • Citations133

Combining hierarchical clustering approaches using the PCA method

  • Jun 27, 2019
  • Expert Systems with Applications
  • Mohammad Jafarzadegan +2
  • Discussion
  • Citations1

Letter: Development of Machine Learning-Based Models to Predict Treatment Response to Spinal Cord Stimulation.

  • Apr 27, 2022
  • Neurosurgery
  • Anant Naik +3
  • Book Chapter
  • Citations157

A Survey of Partitional and Hierarchical Clustering Algorithms

  • Sep 03, 2018
  • Chandan K Reddy +1
  • PDF
  • Book Chapter
  • Citations17

A Brief Comparison of K-means and Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering Algorithms on Small Datasets

  • Jan 01, 2022
  • Hassan I Abdalla
  • Conference Article

Similarity and cluster analysis algorithms for Microarrays using R trees

  • Aug 08, 2005
  • Jiaxiong Pi +2
  • PDF
  • Research Article
  • Citations45

NS-DBSCAN: A Density-Based Clustering Algorithm in Network Space

  • May 08, 2019
  • ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information
  • Tianfu Wang +3
  • Conference Article
  • Citations1

Combining Fuzzy Clustering with ANN Classifier for Categorical Data

  • Mar 01, 2009
  • Indrajit Saha +2
  • Research Article
  • Citations3

Improved Self-Adaptive ACS Algorithm to Determine the Optimal Number of Clusters

  • Jun 21, 2021
  • International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology
  • Ayad Mohammed Jabbar +2
  • Conference Article
  • Citations9

Fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm with unknown number of clusters for symbolic interval data

  • Aug 01, 2008
  • Chen-Chia Chuang +2
  • Research Article
  • Citations31

Understanding tourist behaviour towards destination selection based on social media information: an evaluation using unsupervised clustering algorithms

  • Apr 19, 2022
  • Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights
  • Prosenjit Ghosh +1
  • Research Article
  • Citations139

Clustering microarray gene expression data using weighted Chinese restaurant process

  • Jun 09, 2006
  • Bioinformatics
  • Zhaohui S Qin
  • Research Article
  • Citations3

DRBM-ClustNet: A Deep Restricted Boltzmann-Kohonen Architecture for Data Clustering.

  • Feb 01, 2024
  • IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems
  • J Senthilnath +6
  • Research Article
  • Citations49

Determining number of clusters and prototype locations via multi-scale clustering

  • Dec 01, 1998
  • Pattern Recognition Letters
  • Eiji Nakamura +1
  • Research Article
  • Citations13

Automated clustering of ensembles of alternative models in protein structure databases.

  • Aug 03, 2004
  • Protein Engineering Design and Selection
  • F S Domingues +2
  • Research Article
  • Citations27

Consensus clustering algorithm based on the automatic partitioning similarity graph

  • Oct 09, 2019
  • Data & Knowledge Engineering
  • Seyed Saeed Hamidi +2
Cactus Communications logo

Copyright 2026 Cactus Communications. All rights reserved.