Skip to main content
. 2026 Oct 1;16:1919412. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2026.1919412

Figure 3.

Scientific figure summarizing PCA clustering results: Panel A, scatter plot of 498 data points on PC1 and PC2 axes, showing continuous data distribution; Panel B, bar chart of variable correlations with principal components and a bar graph detailing variance explained by each component; Panel C, table listing adjudication metrics across k values for cluster retention, where all k values failed criteria; Panel D, heatmap showing all sensitivity variants failed at every k value. Final model-form decision notes no candidate k retained, no discrete taxonomy assigned, and retention of six continuous program scores plus PC1 and PC2.

Low-dimensional geometry and revision-defined adjudication of candidate discrete models in GSE31312. (A) PC1-PC2 representation of 498 samples without class assignments. (B) Program-PC correlations and explained variance. (C) Candidate k=2–6 metrics. The four absolute thresholds (mean silhouette >0.25, minimum cluster size ≥25, minimum-cluster median Jaccard ≥0.60 and overall median Jaccard ≥0.75) were defined during revision before execution of the revised analysis. PAC rank and silhouette within 0.02 of the best candidate are presented as descriptive relative diagnostics rather than mandatory retention gates; no clustering metric was recomputed for this reclassification. (D) Fourteen non-reference sensitivity variants evaluated using the same four absolute retention thresholds. k=2 met the silhouette and size criteria but failed both bootstrap-stability thresholds; candidates k=3–6 failed all four absolute criteria. No candidate showed sufficient stability for retention. Final k was not selected and taxonomy was not assigned. The figure does not establish that discrete structure is absent or that continuity is proved.