MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416544127 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.12270

Comparative analysis of unsupervised clustering techniques using validation metrics: Study on cognitive features from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA)

2025· preprint· en· W4416544127 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chuanliu Sheng

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRand indexCluster analysisHierarchical clusteringMedoidCognitionEntropy (arrow of time)SilhouetteConsensus clustering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The primary goal of this study is to explore the application of evaluation metrics to different clustering algorithms using the data provided from the Canadian Longitudinal Study (CLSA), focusing on cognitive features. The objective of our work is to discover potential clinically relevant clusters that contribute to the development of dementia over time-based on cognitive changes. Method: The CLSA dataset includes 18,891 participants with data available at both baseline and follow-up assessments, to which clustering algorithms were applied. The clustering methodologies employed in this analysis are K-means (KM) clustering, Hierarchical Clustering (HC) and Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM). We use multiple evaluation metrics to assess our analysis. For internal evaluation metrics, we use: Average silhouette Width, Within and Between the sum of square Ratio (WB.Ratio), Entropy, Calinski-Harabasz Index (CH Index), and Separation Index. For clustering comparison metrics, we used: Homogeneity, Completeness, Adjusted Rand Index (ARI), Rand Index (RI), and Variation Information. Results: Using evaluation metrics to compare the results of the three clustering techniques, K-means and Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) produced similar results. In contrast, there are significant differences between K-means clustering and Hierarchical Clustering. Our study highlights the importance of the two internal evaluation metrics: entropy and separation index. In between clustering comparison metrics, the Adjusted Rand Index is a key tool. Conclusion: The study results have the potential to contribute to understanding dementia. Researchers can also benefit by applying the suggested evaluation metrics to other areas of healthcare research. Overall, our study improves the understanding of using clustering techniques and evaluation metrics to reveal complex patterns in medical 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.238
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.org→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→