Clustering Longitudinal Data: A Review of Methods and Software Packages
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
Summary Clustering of longitudinal data is becoming increasingly popular in many fields such as social sciences, business, environmental science, medicine and healthcare. However, it is often challenging due to the complex nature of the data, such as dependencies between observations collected over time, missingness, sparsity and non‐linearity, making it difficult to identify meaningful patterns and relationships among the data. Despite the increasingly common application of cluster analysis for longitudinal data, many existing methods are still less known to researchers, and limited guidance is provided in choosing between methods and software packages. In this paper, we review several commonly used methods for clustering longitudinal data. These methods are broadly classified into three categories, namely, model‐based approaches, algorithm‐based approaches and functional clustering approaches. We perform a comparison among these methods and their corresponding R software packages using real‐life datasets and simulated datasets under various conditions. Findings from the analyses and recommendations for using these approaches in practice are 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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