Clustering longitudinal data: comparison of model-based and distance-based approaches using simulated and real-world data in psychiatric research.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Laura Julià, Ana M Sánchez-Torres, Jessica Merchan, Silvia Amoretti, Josep Lluis Carrasco, Sergi Mas
{"title":"Clustering longitudinal data: comparison of model-based and distance-based approaches using simulated and real-world data in psychiatric research.","authors":"Laura Julià, Ana M Sánchez-Torres, Jessica Merchan, Silvia Amoretti, Josep Lluis Carrasco, Sergi Mas","doi":"10.1186/s12874-026-02882-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clustering longitudinal symptom trajectories is increasingly used to characterise clinical heterogeneity in psychiatric disorders. However, the relative performance of distance-based and model-based approaches remains insufficiently studied in psychiatric settings, where limited follow-up waves, measurement variability, and heterogeneous patient responses may affect clustering reliability. We aimed to systematically compare distance-based and model-based (Latent Class Mixed Models, LCMMs) methods, evaluating their performance in recovering the number of groups, classification accuracy, and clinical interpretability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed longitudinal symptom data from 237 first-episode psychosis patients (PEPs cohort). We also performed simulations (500 replicates per scenario) with known group structures (3 or 4), varying group-size distributions (balanced/unbalanced) and levels of group separation (well-separated, partially overlapping, strongly overlapping). Recovery of the true or optimal number of groups was assessed using multiple validity indices. Classification accuracy was measured by weighted Cohen's [Formula: see text]. Clinical interpretability was evaluated in terms of within-group homogeneity, stability across replications, and minimum group size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the PEPs cohort, distance-based methods consistently identified two stable and clinically interpretable trajectory groups, whereas LCMMs frequently suggested more complex structures, often including very small classes. Concordance between methodological families was low, indicating that patient stratification was strongly method-dependent: distance-based methods grouped patients primarily by overall symptom severity, whereas LCMMs distinguished groups according to trajectory slope. In simulations, both approaches performed well when groups were clearly separated, but performance declined with increasing overlap and group-size imbalance. Distance-based methods generally produced more stable and homogeneous partitions, whereas LCMMs showed greater variability across replications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In psychiatric longitudinal studies with few assessment waves and moderate sample sizes, distance-based clustering methods may provide a robust strategy for trajectory-based partitioning. Model-based approaches such as LCMMs may offer advantages when complex nonlinear trajectories are expected, but their stability may be limited under noisy or weakly separated conditions. Combining multiple evaluation criteria and considering clinical interpretability are essential for reliable subgroup identification.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13374183/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-026-02882-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clustering longitudinal symptom trajectories is increasingly used to characterise clinical heterogeneity in psychiatric disorders. However, the relative performance of distance-based and model-based approaches remains insufficiently studied in psychiatric settings, where limited follow-up waves, measurement variability, and heterogeneous patient responses may affect clustering reliability. We aimed to systematically compare distance-based and model-based (Latent Class Mixed Models, LCMMs) methods, evaluating their performance in recovering the number of groups, classification accuracy, and clinical interpretability.

Methods: We analysed longitudinal symptom data from 237 first-episode psychosis patients (PEPs cohort). We also performed simulations (500 replicates per scenario) with known group structures (3 or 4), varying group-size distributions (balanced/unbalanced) and levels of group separation (well-separated, partially overlapping, strongly overlapping). Recovery of the true or optimal number of groups was assessed using multiple validity indices. Classification accuracy was measured by weighted Cohen's [Formula: see text]. Clinical interpretability was evaluated in terms of within-group homogeneity, stability across replications, and minimum group size.

Results: In the PEPs cohort, distance-based methods consistently identified two stable and clinically interpretable trajectory groups, whereas LCMMs frequently suggested more complex structures, often including very small classes. Concordance between methodological families was low, indicating that patient stratification was strongly method-dependent: distance-based methods grouped patients primarily by overall symptom severity, whereas LCMMs distinguished groups according to trajectory slope. In simulations, both approaches performed well when groups were clearly separated, but performance declined with increasing overlap and group-size imbalance. Distance-based methods generally produced more stable and homogeneous partitions, whereas LCMMs showed greater variability across replications.

Conclusions: In psychiatric longitudinal studies with few assessment waves and moderate sample sizes, distance-based clustering methods may provide a robust strategy for trajectory-based partitioning. Model-based approaches such as LCMMs may offer advantages when complex nonlinear trajectories are expected, but their stability may be limited under noisy or weakly separated conditions. Combining multiple evaluation criteria and considering clinical interpretability are essential for reliable subgroup identification.

聚类纵向数据:比较基于模型和基于距离的方法使用模拟和现实世界的数据在精神病学研究中。
背景:聚类纵向症状轨迹越来越多地用于表征精神疾病的临床异质性。然而,基于距离和基于模型的方法的相对性能在精神病学环境中仍然没有得到充分的研究,其中有限的随访波,测量变异性和异质患者反应可能会影响聚类可靠性。我们的目的是系统地比较基于距离和基于模型(潜类混合模型,LCMMs)的方法,评估它们在恢复组数、分类准确性和临床可解释性方面的表现。方法:我们分析了237例首发精神病患者(pep队列)的纵向症状资料。我们还对已知群体结构(3或4)、不同群体大小分布(平衡/不平衡)和群体分离水平(分离良好、部分重叠、强烈重叠)进行了模拟(每个场景500次重复)。使用多个效度指标评估真实或最佳组数的恢复情况。分类准确率是用加权科恩公式来衡量的。临床可解释性根据组内均匀性、重复稳定性和最小组规模进行评估。结果:在pep队列中,基于距离的方法一致地确定了两个稳定且临床可解释的轨迹组,而LCMMs通常提示更复杂的结构,通常包括非常小的类别。方法家族之间的一致性较低,表明患者分层强烈依赖于方法:基于距离的方法主要根据总体症状严重程度对患者进行分组,而LCMMs根据轨迹斜率对患者进行分组。在模拟中,两种方法在组明显分开时表现良好,但随着重叠和组大小不平衡的增加,性能下降。基于距离的方法通常产生更稳定和均匀的分区,而lcmm在复制中表现出更大的可变性。结论:在具有少量评估波和中等样本量的精神病学纵向研究中,基于距离的聚类方法可能为基于轨迹的划分提供一个强大的策略。基于模型的方法,如lcmm,在预期复杂非线性轨迹时可能具有优势,但在噪声或弱分离条件下,其稳定性可能受到限制。结合多种评价标准并考虑临床可解释性是可靠的亚组鉴定的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书