Taylor & Francis Group
Browse
LICENSE (17.42 kB)
TEXT
MixTVEM.R (67.56 kB)
TEXT
analysis_blrt.R (1.58 kB)
TEXT
analysis_convergence.R (7.24 kB)
TEXT
analysis_lognormal.R (3.29 kB)
TEXT
analysis_normal.R (9.56 kB)
TEXT
analysis_normal_unknown.R (6.1 kB)
TEXT
analysis_propnoise.R (3.23 kB)
TEXT
builder.R (2.69 kB)
TEXT
casestudy.R (1.56 kB)
TEXT
compare.R (1.04 kB)
TEXT
comparison.Rproj (0.2 kB)
TEXT
data_figures.R (3.93 kB)
TEXT
datasets.R (3.06 kB)
TEXT
datasets_randlinear_normal.R (0.99 kB)
TEXT
datasets_randquad_lognormal.R (1.73 kB)
TEXT
datasets_randquad_normal.R (1.59 kB)
TEXT
datasets_randquad_propnoise.R (1.34 kB)
TEXT
exp_lognorm_known.R (5.43 kB)
TEXT
exp_normal_known.R (9.52 kB)
1/0
64 files

A comparison of methods for clustering longitudinal data with slowly changing trends

Version 3 2023-02-28, 20:07
Version 2 2021-09-29, 12:43
Version 1 2021-01-19, 22:50
dataset
posted on 2023-02-28, 20:07 authored by N. G. P. Den Teuling, S. C. Pauws, E. R. van den Heuvel

Longitudinal clustering provides a detailed yet comprehensible description of time profiles among subjects. With several approaches that are commonly used for this purpose, it remains unclear under which conditions a method is preferred over another method. We investigated the performance of five methods using Monte Carlo simulations on synthetic datasets, representing various scenarios involving polynomial time profiles. The performance was evaluated on two aspects: The agreement of the group assignment to the simulated reference, as measured by the split-join distance, and the trend estimation error, as measured by a weighted minimum of the mean squared error (WMMSE). Growth mixture modeling (GMM) was found to achieve the best overall performance, followed closely by a two-step approach using growth curve modeling and k-means (GCKM). Considering the model similarities between GMM and GCKM, the latter is preferred for large datasets for its computational efficiency. Longitudinal k-means (KML) and group-based trajectory modeling were found to have practically identical solutions in the case that the group trajectory model of the latter method is correctly specified. Both methods performed less than GMM and GCKM in most settings.

Funding

This work was supported by Philips Research, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. Niek Den Teuling and Steffen Pauws are employees of Philips.

History