Bayesian consensus clustering for multivariate longitudinal data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In clinical and epidemiological studies, there is a growing interest in studying the heterogeneity among patients based on longitudinal characteristics to identify subtypes of the study population. Compared to clustering a single longitudinal marker, simultaneously clustering multiple longitudinal markers allow additional information to be incorporated into the clustering process, which reveals co-existing longitudinal patterns and generates deeper biological insight. In the current study, we propose a Bayesian consensus clustering (BCC) model for multivariate longitudinal data. Instead of arriving at a single overall clustering, the proposed model allows each marker to follow marker-specific local clustering and these local clusterings are aggregated to find a global (consensus) clustering. To estimate the posterior distribution of model parameters, a Gibbs sampling algorithm is proposed. We apply our proposed model to the primary biliary cirrhosis study to identify patient subtypes that may be associated with their prognosis. We also perform simulation studies to compare the clustering performance between the proposed model and existing models under several scenarios. The results demonstrate that the proposed BCC model serves as a useful tool for clustering multivariate longitudinal data.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".