## 3 Results and Discussion
The right part of the figure indicates the different cluster states with their occurrence out of the total subjects. Figure 6 shows the significance of the selected top ranked dissimilarity node with other nodes such as cluster prominence, cluster shade, contrast, autocorrelation, energy, entropy, correlation, correlation2, and homogenity1. The highest association was yielded in the cluster \(\leq\)349,738 (58.62%) with the red lines showing cluster prominence, contrast, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Node** & **Outgoing Force** & **Incoming Force** & **Total Force** \\ \hline Dissimilarity & 0.9330 & 1.0146 & 1.9477 \\ Cluster prominence & 1.6428 & 0.0000 & 1.6428 \\ Contrast & 0.5446 & 0.6281 & 1.1727 \\ Cluster shade & 0.0000 & 0.9330 & 0.9330 \\ Correlation & 0.5954 & 0.2848 & 0.8802 \\ Energy & 0.5824 & 0.2278 & 0.8102 \\ Entropy & 0.1956 & 0.5824 & 0.7779 \\ Autocorrelation & 0.2848 & 0.3167 & 0.6015 \\ Correlation2 & 0.0000 & 0.5954 & 0.5954 \\ Homogenity1 & 0.0000 & 0.1956 & 0.1956 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Node force of extracted GLCM features from congestive heart failure signals. Figure 4: Dynamic tree analysis, based on the selected target node of dissimilarity. and cluster shade with probability in the range of 0.0 to 1.0, and with other nodes in the range 0.3 to 0.75. The second highest occurrence of dissimilarity was yielded in the cluster \(\leq\)882,604 (34.48%), indicated in the green color, with cluster prominence and cluster shades occurring in the highest probability range of 0.0 to 0.90. Figure 5: Unsupervised clustering when dissimilarity was selected as the target node. Figure 6: Significance of the dissimilarity node with all nodes at selected cluster states (\(\leq\)349,738, (58.62%), \(\leq\)882,604 (34.48%), and \(>\)882,604 (5.89%)). Table 2 shows the overall analysis of the high-ranked feature of dissimilarity as the target node, alongside other nodes. The highest performance was yielded using cluster prominence with mutual information (_MI_) as 1.0146, normalized _MI_ (64.01%), relative _MI_ (81.33%), and relative significance (1.000), followed by cluster shade, contrast, autocorrelation, energy, entropy, correlation, correlation2, and homogeneity. Table 3 shows the local analysis for cluster 1 of 3. The highest significance was yielded with cluster prominence with binary _MI_ (0.7847), relative binary significance, (80.19%), binary relative significance (1.000), and max. Bayes factor (92.64%), followed by cluster shade, contrast, and so on. Table 4 shows the local analysis for cluster 2 of 3. The highest significance was yielded with cluster prominence with binary _MI_ (0.6966), relative binary significance (74.95%), binary relative significance (1.000), and max. Bayes factor (97.50%), followed by cluster shade, contrast, and so on. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Node**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Binary _MI_} & **Relative Binary** & **Binary Relative** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Maximum Bayes Factor**} \\  & & **Significance** & **Significance** & & \\ \hline Cluster prominence & 0.6966 & 74.95\% & 1.000 & \(\leq\)1,433,166.15 (2/3) & 97.50\% & 2.5705 \\ \hline Cluster shade & 0.6150 & 66.17\% & 0.84828 & \(\leq\)411,098.14 (2/3) & 85.00\% & 2.8171 \\ \hline Contrast & 0.2993 & 32.20\% & 0.4297 & \(\leq\)0.105 (2/3) & 84.20\% & 1.6841 \\ \hline Energy & 0.0441 & 4.74\% & 0.0633 & \(>\)129,593.07 (2/3) & 11.90\% & 1.3809 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Local analysis with target states dissimilarity \(\leq\) 882, 604.41 (\(\frac{2}{3}\)) 34.48%.