Alan Balendran | arXiv Science

arXiv2025

Clustering methods for Categorical Time Series and Sequences : A scoping review

Objective: To provide an overview of clustering methods for categorical time series (CTS), a data structure commonly found in epidemiology, sociology, biology, and marketing, and to support method selection in regards to data characteristics. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, from inception up to November 2024 to identify articles that propose and evaluate clustering techniques for CTS. Methods were classified according to three major families -- distance-based, feature-based, and model-based -- and assessed on their ability to handle data challenges such as variable sequence length, multivariate data, continuous time, missing data, time-invariant covariates, and large data volumes. Results: Out of 14607 studies, we included 124 articles describing 129 methods, spanning domains such as artificial intelligence, social sciences, and epidemiology. Distance-based methods, particularly those using Optimal Matching, were most prevalent, with 56 methods. We identified 28 model-based methods, which demonstrated superior flexibility for handling complex data structures such as multivariate data, continuous time and time-invariant covariates. We also recorded 45 feature-based approaches, which were on average more scalable but less flexible. A searchable Web application was developed to facilitate method selection based on dataset characteristics ( https://cts-clustering-scoping-review-7sxqj3sameqvmwkvnzfynz.streamlit.app/ ) Discussion: While distance-based methods dominate, model-based approaches offer the richest modeling potential but are less scalable. Feature-based methods favor performance over flexibility, with limited support for complex data structures. Conclusion: This review highlights methodological diversity and gaps in CTS clustering. The proposed typology aims to guide researchers in selecting methods for their specific use cases.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Do machine learning methods lead to similar individualized treatment rules? A comparison study on real data

Identifying patients who benefit from a treatment is a key aspect of personalized medicine, which allows the development of individualized treatment rules (ITRs). Many machine learning methods have been proposed to create such rules. However, to what extent the methods lead to similar ITRs, i.e., recommending the same treatment for the same individuals is unclear. In this work, we compared 22 of the most common approaches in two randomized control trials. Two classes of methods can be distinguished. The first class of methods relies on predicting individualized treatment effects from which an ITR is derived by recommending the treatment evaluated to the individuals with a predicted benefit. In the second class, methods directly estimate the ITR without estimating individualized treatment effects. For each trial, the performance of ITRs was assessed by various metrics, and the pairwise agreement between all ITRs was also calculated. Results showed that the ITRs obtained via the different methods generally had considerable disagreements regarding the patients to be treated. A better concordance was found among akin methods. Overall, when evaluating the performance of ITRs in a validation sample, all methods produced ITRs with limited performance, suggesting a high potential for optimism. For non-parametric methods, this optimism was likely due to overfitting. The different methods do not lead to similar ITRs and are therefore not interchangeable. The choice of the method strongly influences for which patients a certain treatment is recommended, drawing some concerns about their practical use.

stat.AP↗