Classifying GABAergic interneurons with semi-supervised projected model-based clustering

Objectives: A recently introduced pragmatic scheme promises to be a useful catalog of interneuron names.We sought to automatically classify digitally reconstructed interneuronal morphologies according tothis scheme. Simultaneously, we sought to discover possible subtypes of these types that might emergeduring automatic classification (clustering). We also investigated which morphometric properties weremost relevant for this classification.Materials and methods: A set of 118 digitally reconstructed interneuronal morphologies classified into thecommon basket (CB), horse-tail (HT), large basket (LB), and Martinotti (MA) interneuron types by 42 of theworld?s leading neuroscientists, quantified by five simple morphometric properties of the axon and fourof the dendrites. We labeled each neuron with the type most commonly assigned to it by the experts. Wethen removed this class information for each type separately, and applied semi-supervised clustering tothose cells (keeping the others? cluster membership fixed), to assess separation from other types and lookfor the formation of new groups (subtypes). We performed this same experiment unlabeling the cells oftwo types at a time, and of half the cells of a single type at a time. The clustering model is a finite mixtureof Gaussians which we adapted for the estimation of local (per-cluster) feature relevance. We performedthe described experiments on three different subsets of the data, formed according to how many expertsagreed on type membership: at least 18 experts (the full data set), at least 21 (73 neurons), and at least26 (47 neurons).Results: Interneurons with more reliable type labels were classified more accurately. We classified HTcells with 100% accuracy, MA cells with 73% accuracy, and CB and LB cells with 56% and 58% accuracy,respectively. We identified three subtypes of the MA type, one subtype of CB and LB types each, andno subtypes of HT (it was a single, homogeneous type). We got maximum (adapted) Silhouette widthand ARI values of 1, 0.83, 0.79, and 0.42, when unlabeling the HT, CB, LB, and MA types, respectively,confirming the quality of the formed cluster solutions. The subtypes identified when unlabeling a singletype also emerged when unlabeling two types at a time, confirming their validity. Axonal morphometricproperties were more relevant that dendritic ones, with the axonal polar histogram length in the [pi, 2pi) angle interval being particularly useful.Conclusions: The applied semi-supervised clustering method can accurately discriminate among CB, HT, LB, and MA interneuron types while discovering potential subtypes, and is therefore useful for neuronal classification. The discovery of potential subtypes suggests that some of these types are more heteroge-neous that previously thought. Finally, axonal variables seem to be more relevant than dendritic ones fordistinguishing among the CB, HT, LB, and MA interneuron types

Semi-supervised subspace clustering and applications to neuroscience

Machine learning techniques are used for extracting valuable knowledge from data. Nowa¬days, these techniques are becoming even more important due to the evolution in data ac¬quisition and storage, which is leading to data with different characteristics that must be exploited. Therefore, advances in data collection must be accompanied with advances in machine learning techniques to solve new challenges that might arise, on both academic and real applications. There are several machine learning techniques depending on both data characteristics and purpose. Unsupervised classification or clustering is one of the most known techniques when data lack of supervision (unlabeled data) and the aim is to discover data groups (clusters) according to their similarity. On the other hand, supervised classification needs data with supervision (labeled data) and its aim is to make predictions about labels of new data. The presence of data labels is a very important characteristic that guides not only the learning task but also other related tasks such as validation. When only some of the available data are labeled whereas the others remain unlabeled (partially labeled data), neither clustering nor supervised classification can be used. This scenario, which is becoming common nowadays because of labeling process ignorance or cost, is tackled with semi-supervised learning techniques. This thesis focuses on the branch of semi-supervised learning closest to clustering, i.e., to discover clusters using available labels as support to guide and improve the clustering process. Another important data characteristic, different from the presence of data labels, is the relevance or not of data features. Data are characterized by features, but it is possible that not all of them are relevant, or equally relevant, for the learning process. A recent clustering tendency, related to data relevance and called subspace clustering, claims that different clusters might be described by different feature subsets. This differs from traditional solutions to data relevance problem, where a single feature subset (usually the complete set of original features) is found and used to perform the clustering process. The proximity of this work to clustering leads to the first goal of this thesis. As commented above, clustering validation is a difficult task due to the absence of data labels. Although there are many indices that can be used to assess the quality of clustering solutions, these validations depend on clustering algorithms and data characteristics. Hence, in the first goal three known clustering algorithms are used to cluster data with outliers and noise, to critically study how some of the most known validation indices behave. The main goal of this work is however to combine semi-supervised clustering with subspace clustering to obtain clustering solutions that can be correctly validated by using either known indices or expert opinions. Two different algorithms are proposed from different points of view to discover clusters characterized by different subspaces. For the first algorithm, available data labels are used for searching for subspaces firstly, before searching for clusters. This algorithm assigns each instance to only one cluster (hard clustering) and is based on mapping known labels to subspaces using supervised classification techniques. Subspaces are then used to find clusters using traditional clustering techniques. The second algorithm uses available data labels to search for subspaces and clusters at the same time in an iterative process. This algorithm assigns each instance to each cluster based on a membership probability (soft clustering) and is based on integrating known labels and the search for subspaces into a model-based clustering approach. The different proposals are tested using different real and synthetic databases, and comparisons to other methods are also included when appropriate. Finally, as an example of real and current application, different machine learning tech¬niques, including one of the proposals of this work (the most sophisticated one) are applied to a task of one of the most challenging biological problems nowadays, the human brain model¬ing. Specifically, expert neuroscientists do not agree with a neuron classification for the brain cortex, which makes impossible not only any modeling attempt but also the day-to-day work without a common way to name neurons. Therefore, machine learning techniques may help to get an accepted solution to this problem, which can be an important milestone for future research in neuroscience. Resumen Las técnicas de aprendizaje automático se usan para extraer información valiosa de datos. Hoy en día, la importancia de estas técnicas está siendo incluso mayor, debido a que la evolución en la adquisición y almacenamiento de datos está llevando a datos con diferentes características que deben ser explotadas. Por lo tanto, los avances en la recolección de datos deben ir ligados a avances en las técnicas de aprendizaje automático para resolver nuevos retos que pueden aparecer, tanto en aplicaciones académicas como reales. Existen varias técnicas de aprendizaje automático dependiendo de las características de los datos y del propósito. La clasificación no supervisada o clustering es una de las técnicas más conocidas cuando los datos carecen de supervisión (datos sin etiqueta), siendo el objetivo descubrir nuevos grupos (agrupaciones) dependiendo de la similitud de los datos. Por otra parte, la clasificación supervisada necesita datos con supervisión (datos etiquetados) y su objetivo es realizar predicciones sobre las etiquetas de nuevos datos. La presencia de las etiquetas es una característica muy importante que guía no solo el aprendizaje sino también otras tareas relacionadas como la validación. Cuando solo algunos de los datos disponibles están etiquetados, mientras que el resto permanece sin etiqueta (datos parcialmente etiquetados), ni el clustering ni la clasificación supervisada se pueden utilizar. Este escenario, que está llegando a ser común hoy en día debido a la ignorancia o el coste del proceso de etiquetado, es abordado utilizando técnicas de aprendizaje semi-supervisadas. Esta tesis trata la rama del aprendizaje semi-supervisado más cercana al clustering, es decir, descubrir agrupaciones utilizando las etiquetas disponibles como apoyo para guiar y mejorar el proceso de clustering. Otra característica importante de los datos, distinta de la presencia de etiquetas, es la relevancia o no de los atributos de los datos. Los datos se caracterizan por atributos, pero es posible que no todos ellos sean relevantes, o igualmente relevantes, para el proceso de aprendizaje. Una tendencia reciente en clustering, relacionada con la relevancia de los datos y llamada clustering en subespacios, afirma que agrupaciones diferentes pueden estar descritas por subconjuntos de atributos diferentes. Esto difiere de las soluciones tradicionales para el problema de la relevancia de los datos, en las que se busca un único subconjunto de atributos (normalmente el conjunto original de atributos) y se utiliza para realizar el proceso de clustering. La cercanía de este trabajo con el clustering lleva al primer objetivo de la tesis. Como se ha comentado previamente, la validación en clustering es una tarea difícil debido a la ausencia de etiquetas. Aunque existen muchos índices que pueden usarse para evaluar la calidad de las soluciones de clustering, estas validaciones dependen de los algoritmos de clustering utilizados y de las características de los datos. Por lo tanto, en el primer objetivo tres conocidos algoritmos se usan para agrupar datos con valores atípicos y ruido para estudiar de forma crítica cómo se comportan algunos de los índices de validación más conocidos. El objetivo principal de este trabajo sin embargo es combinar clustering semi-supervisado con clustering en subespacios para obtener soluciones de clustering que puedan ser validadas de forma correcta utilizando índices conocidos u opiniones expertas. Se proponen dos algoritmos desde dos puntos de vista diferentes para descubrir agrupaciones caracterizadas por diferentes subespacios. Para el primer algoritmo, las etiquetas disponibles se usan para bus¬car en primer lugar los subespacios antes de buscar las agrupaciones. Este algoritmo asigna cada instancia a un único cluster (hard clustering) y se basa en mapear las etiquetas cono-cidas a subespacios utilizando técnicas de clasificación supervisada. El segundo algoritmo utiliza las etiquetas disponibles para buscar de forma simultánea los subespacios y las agru¬paciones en un proceso iterativo. Este algoritmo asigna cada instancia a cada cluster con una probabilidad de pertenencia (soft clustering) y se basa en integrar las etiquetas conocidas y la búsqueda en subespacios dentro de clustering basado en modelos. Las propuestas son probadas utilizando diferentes bases de datos reales y sintéticas, incluyendo comparaciones con otros métodos cuando resulten apropiadas. Finalmente, a modo de ejemplo de una aplicación real y actual, se aplican diferentes técnicas de aprendizaje automático, incluyendo una de las propuestas de este trabajo (la más sofisticada) a una tarea de uno de los problemas biológicos más desafiantes hoy en día, el modelado del cerebro humano. Específicamente, expertos neurocientíficos no se ponen de acuerdo en una clasificación de neuronas para la corteza cerebral, lo que imposibilita no sólo cualquier intento de modelado sino también el trabajo del día a día al no tener una forma estándar de llamar a las neuronas. Por lo tanto, las técnicas de aprendizaje automático pueden ayudar a conseguir una solución aceptada para este problema, lo cual puede ser un importante hito para investigaciones futuras en neurociencia

Semi-supervised projected model-based clustering

We present an adaptation of model-based clustering for partially labeled data, that is capable of finding hidden cluster labels. All the originally known and discoverable clusters are represented using localized feature subset selections (subspaces), obtaining clusters unable to be discovered by global feature subset selection. The semi-supervised projected model-based clustering algorithm (SeSProC) also includes a novel model selection approach, using a greedy forward search to estimate the final number of clusters. The quality of SeSProC is assessed using synthetic data, demonstrating its effectiveness, under different data conditions, not only at classifying instances with known labels, but also at discovering completely hidden clusters in different subspaces. Besides, SeSProC also outperforms three related baseline algorithms in most scenarios using synthetic and real data sets

A comparison of clustering quality indices using outliers and noise

Quality indices in clustering are used not only to assess the quality of the partitions but also to determine the number of clusters in the final result. When these indices are evaluated in a case study, real data conditions or different clustering algorithms are seldom taken in to account. Here, some of the standard indices used in the literature are compared using more realistic databases that include outliers or noisy dimensions, which is more like a real problem-solving approach. Besides, three different clustering methods are used in an attempt to identify different behaviours. Also, the performance of the quality index-clustering algorithm tandem is compared to random grouping, with the aim of running an additional check. The indices are ranked, and index-based conclusions are drawn for all the scenarios