Identifying longitudinal-growth patterns from infancy to childhood: a study comparing multiple clustering techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most studies on children evaluate longitudinal growth as an important health indicator. Different methods have been used to detect growth patterns across childhood, but with no comparison between them to evaluate result consistency. We explored the variation in growth patterns as detected by different clustering and latent class modelling techniques. Moreover, we investigated how the characteristics/features (e.g. slope, tempo, velocity) of longitudinal growth influence pattern detection. METHODS: We studied 1134 children from The Applied Research Group for Kids cohort with longitudinal-growth measurements [height, weight, body mass index (BMI)] available from birth until 12 years of age. Growth patterns were identified by latent class mixed models (LCMM) and time-series clustering (TSC) using various algorithms and distance measures. Time-invariant features were extracted from all growth measures. A random forest classifier was used to predict the identified growth patterns for each growth measure using the extracted features. RESULTS: Overall, 72 TSC configurations were tested. For BMI, we identified three growth patterns by both TSC and LCMM. The clustering agreement was 58% between LCMM and TS clusters, whereas it varied between 30.8% and 93.3% within the TSC configurations. The extracted features (n = 67) predicted the identified patterns for each growth measure with accuracy of 82%-89%. Specific feature categories were identified as the most important predictors for patterns of all tested growth measures. CONCLUSION: Growth-pattern detection is affected by the method employed. This can impact on comparisons across different populations or associations between growth patterns and health outcomes. Growth features can be reliably used as predictors of growth patterns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".