2021
DOI: 10.1080/03610918.2020.1861464
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: 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 th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
(78 reference statements)
0
22
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Future studies will focus on the comparison between the different models and approaches presented here. Simulation work has already been done [ 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 ], but not in this specific framework.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Future studies will focus on the comparison between the different models and approaches presented here. Simulation work has already been done [ 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 ], but not in this specific framework.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even recently, Rodriguez [73] tested several clustering methods including -means, Hierarchical, and other probabilistic methods while the authors in Den Teuling et al. [74] investigated the performance of five longitudinal clustering methods using Monte Carlo simulations on synthetic datasets, representing various scenarios involving polynomial time profiles.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of authors compare the assumptions and use of the main approaches to GMM ( 18 , 32 , 43 , 69 ). Nagin and Odgers ( 43 ) argue that while there are technical differences between these approaches (i.e., they make different assumptions about the distribution of trajectories in the population), they are all designed to assign individuals into trajectory groups.…”
Section: Person-centered Approaches and Their Application In Asr Phenotype Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Berlin et al discuss when and how a researcher might use LCGA and GMM, including a step-by-step account of processes in the identification of latent trajectory subgroups ( 18 , 48 ). After conducting Monte Carlo simulations of synthetic data, Den Teuling et al ( 69 ) concluded that GMM provided the “best overall performance.”…”
Section: Person-centered Approaches and Their Application In Asr Phenotype Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%