Evaluating Cluster Preservation in Frequent Itemset Integration for Distributed Databases
- 101 Downloads
Medical sciences are rapidly emerging as a data rich discipline where the amount of databases and their dimensionality increases exponentially with time. Data integration algorithms often rely upon discovering embedded, useful, and novel relationships between feature attributes that describe the data. Such algorithms require data integration prior to knowledge discovery, which can lack the timeliness, scalability, robustness, and reliability of discovered knowledge. Knowledge integration algorithms offer pattern discovery on segmented and distributed databases but require sophisticated methods for pattern merging and evaluating integration quality. We propose a unique computational framework for discovering and integrating frequent sets of features from distributed databases and then exploiting them for unsupervised learning from the integrated space. Assorted indices of cluster quality are used to assess the accuracy of knowledge merging. The approach preserves significant cluster quality under various cluster distributions and noise conditions. Exhaustive experimentation is performed to further evaluate the scalability and robustness of the proposed methodology.
KeywordsKnowledge merging Frequent patterns Clustering Quality indices Distributed databases
- 1.Deeray, T., and Verhayden, P. Towards a semantic integration of medical relational databases by using ontologies: a case study. On the Move to Meaningful Internet System 2003 Workshop (OTM ’03), Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences 2889, pp. 137–150, 2003Google Scholar
- 2.Hadzic, M., and Chang, E., Onto-agent methodology for design of ontology-based mufti-agent systems. Int. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 23:19–30, 2008.Google Scholar
- 4.Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., Discovery, analysis, and presentation of strong rules. In: Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., and Frawley, W. J. (Eds.), Knowledge Discovery in Databases. AAAI/MIT Press, Cambridge, 1991.Google Scholar
- 5.Goethals, B., Survey on Frequent Pattern Mining. Available at http://www.cs.columbia.edu/∼jebara/6772/papers/SurveyFPMining.pdf, 2003.
- 6.Dua, S., Jain, V., and Thompson, H. W., Patient classification using association mining of clinical images. Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro, 2008. ISBI 2008. 5th IEEE International Symposium on, pp.253–256, 14–17 May 2008.Google Scholar
- 7.Zaki, M. J., Parthsarathy, S., Ogihara, M., and Li, W., New algorithms for fast discovery of association rules. KDD, pp. 283–286, 1997.Google Scholar
- 8.Lent, B., Swami, A., and Widom, J., Clustering association rules. Proc. 1997 Int’l Conf. Data Eng., pp. 220–231, Apr. 1997.Google Scholar
- 9.Agrawal, R., and Srikant, R., Fast algorithms for mining association rules in large databases. VLDB ’94: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp. 487–499, 1994.Google Scholar
- 10.Sethi, P., and Jain M., A comparative feature selection approach for the prediction of healthcare coverage. Communications in Computer and Information Science, to appear 2010.Google Scholar
- 13.Han, J., Pei, H., and Yin, Y., Mining frequent patterns without candidate generation. In: Proc. conf. on the Management of Data (SIGMOD’00, Dallas, TX). ACM Press, New York, 2000.Google Scholar
- 14.Sethi, P., and Leangsuksun, C., A novel computational framework for fast distributed computing and knowledge integration for microarray gene expression data analysis. Advanced Information Networking and Applications, International Conference on, pp. 613–617, 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications - Volume 2 (AINA’06), 2006.Google Scholar
- 16.Hubert, L., and Arabie, P., Comparing partitions. J. Classif. 193–218, 1985.Google Scholar