ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Unsupervised clustering of longitudinal clinical measurements in electronic health records.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deterministic Overlapping Multimorbidity Phenotypes for Leakage-Safe EHR Modeling of Incident Cognitive Impairment in All of Us.Journal of interdisciplinary research applied to medicine · 2026Article
- Deep learning for vessel segmentation and flow analysis to identify clusters associated with adverse outcomes in a fontan patient registry.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Subtyping Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease using longitudinal electronic health records.Nature aging · 2026Article
- Construction of patient trajectories to model clinical trial outcomes: application to myasthenia gravis.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Longitudinal electronic health records (EHR) can be utilized to identify patterns of disease development and progression in real-world settings. Unsupervised temporal matching algorithms are being repurposed to EHR from signal processing- and protein-sequence alignment tasks where they have shown immense promise for gaining insight into disease. The robustness of these algorithms for classifying EHR clinical data remains to be determined. Timeseries compiled from clinical measurements, such as blood pressure, have far more irregularity in sampling and missingness than the data for which these algorithms were developed, necessitating a systematic evaluation of these methods. We applied 30 state-of-the-art unsupervised machine learning algorithms to 6,912 systematically generated simulated clinical datasets across five parameters. These algorithms included eight temporal matching algorithms with fourteen partitional and eight fuzzy clustering methods. Nemenyi tests were used to determine differences in accuracy using the Adjusted Rand Index (ARI). Dynamic time warping and its lower-bound variants had the highest accuracies across all cohorts (median ARI>0.70). All 30 methods were better at discriminating classes with differences in magnitude compared to differences in trajectory shapes. Missingness impacted accuracies only when classes were different by trajectory shape. The method with the highest ARI was then used to cluster a large pediatric metabolic syndrome (MetS) cohort (N = 43,426). We identified three unique childhood BMI patterns with high average cluster consensus (>70%). The algorithm identified a cluster with consistently high BMI which had the greatest risk of MetS, consistent with prior literature (OR = 4.87, 95% CI: 3.93-6.12). While these algorithms have been shown to have similar accuracies for regular timeseries, their accuracies in clinical applications vary substantially in discriminating differences in shape and especially with moderate to high missingness (>10%). This systematic assessment also shows that the most robust algorithms tested here can derive meaningful insights from longitudinal clinical data.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.