Joint clustering multiple longitudinal features: A comparison of methods and software packages with practical guidance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustering longitudinal features is a common goal in medical studies to identify distinct disease developmental trajectories. Compared to clustering a single longitudinal feature, integrating multiple longitudinal features allows additional information to be incorporated into the clustering process, which may reveal co-existing longitudinal patterns and generate deeper biological insight. Despite its increasing importance and popularity, there is limited practical guidance for implementing cluster analysis approaches for multiple longitudinal features and evaluating their comparative performance in medical datasets. In this paper, we provide an overview of several commonly used approaches to clustering multiple longitudinal features, with an emphasis on application and implementation through R software. These methods can be broadly categorized into two categories, namely model-based (including frequentist and Bayesian) approaches and algorithm-based approaches. To evaluate their performance, we compare these approaches using real-life and simulated datasets. These results provide practical guidance to applied researchers who are interested in applying these approaches for clustering multiple longitudinal features. Recommendations for applied researchers and suggestions for future research in this area are also discussed.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it