4.6 Article

Clustering High-Dimensional Landmark-Based Two-Dimensional Shape Data

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 110, Issue 511, Pages 946-961

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2015.1034802

Keywords

Alternating direction method of multipliers; Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; Corpus callosum; Offset-normal shape distribution; Shape clustering

Funding

  1. NIH [MH086633, RR025747, MH092335]
  2. NSF [SES-1357666, DMS-1407655]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An important goal in image analysis is to cluster and recognize objects of interest according to the shapes of their boundaries. Clustering such objects faces at least four major challenges including a curved shape space, a high-dimensional feature space, a complex spatial correlation structure, and shape variation associated with some covariates (e.g., age or gender). The aim of this article is to develop a penalized model-based clustering framework to cluster landmark-based planar shape data, while explicitly addressing these challenges. Specifically, a mixture of offset-normal shape factor analyzers (MOSFA) is proposed with mixing proportions defined through a regression model (e.g., logistic) and an offset-normal shape distribution in each component for data in the curved shape space. A latent factor analysis model is introduced to explicitly model the complex spatial correlation. A penalized likelihood approach with both adaptive pairwise fused Lasso penalty function and L-2 penalty function is used to automatically realize variable selection via thresholding and deliver a sparse solution. Our real data analysis has confirmed the excellent finite-sample performance of MOSFA in revealing meaningful clusters in the corpus callosum shape data obtained from the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder-200 (ADHD-200) study. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available