Dataset Information

When Average Isn't Good Enough: Identifying Meaningful Subgroups in Clinical Data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical data are usually analyzed with the assumption that knowledge gathered from group averages applies to the individual. Doing so potentially obscures patients with meaningfully different trajectories of therapeutic change. Needed are "idionomic" methods that first examine idiographic patterns before nomothetic generalizations are made. The objective of this paper is to test whether such an idionomic method leads to different clinical conclusions.

Methods

51 patients completed weekly process measures and symptom severity over a period of eight weeks. Change trajectories were analyzed using a nomothetic approach and an idiographic approach with bottom-up clustering of similar individuals. The outcome was patients' well-being at post-treatment.

Results

Individuals differed in the extent that underlying processes were linked to symptoms. Average trend lines did not represent the intraindividual changes well. The idionomic approach readily identified subgroups of patients that differentially predicted distal outcomes (well-being).

Conclusions

Relying exclusively on average results may lead to an oversight of intraindividual pathways. Characterizing data first using idiographic approaches led to more refined conclusions, which is clinically useful, scientifically rigorous, and may help advance individualized psychotherapy approaches.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10608-023-10453-x.

SUBMITTER: Gloster AT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11341641 | biostudies-literature | 2024

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

When Average Isn't Good Enough: Identifying Meaningful Subgroups in Clinical Data.

Gloster Andrew T AT Nadler Matthias M Block Victoria V Haller Elisa E Rubel Julian J Benoy Charles C Villanueva Jeanette J Bader Klaus K Walter Marc M Lang Undine U Hofmann Stefan G SG Ciarrochi Joseph J Hayes Steven C SC

Cognitive therapy and research 20240128 4

<h4>Background</h4>Clinical data are usually analyzed with the assumption that knowledge gathered from group averages applies to the individual. Doing so potentially obscures patients with meaningfully different trajectories of therapeutic change. Needed are "idionomic" methods that first examine idiographic patterns before nomothetic generalizations are made. The objective of this paper is to test whether such an idionomic method leads to different clinical conclusions.<h4>Methods</h4>51 patien ...[more]

PMID: 39184307

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs a consequence of the evolutionary process, data collected from related species tend to be similar. This similarity by descent can obscure subtler signals in the data such as the evidence of constraint on variation due to shared selective pressures. In comparative sequence analysis, for example, sequence similarity is often used to illuminate important regions of the genome, but if the comparison is between closely related species, then similarity is the rule rather than the interesting exception. Furthermore, and perhaps worse yet, the contribution of a divergent third species may be masked by the strong similarity between the other two. Here we propose a remedy that weighs the contribution of each species according to its phylogenetic placement.ResultsWe first solve the problem of summarizing data related by phylogeny, and we explain why an average should operate on the entire evolutionary trajectory that relates the data. This perspective leads to a new approach in which we define the average in terms of the phylogeny, using the data and a stochastic model to obtain a probability on evolutionary trajectories. With the assumption that the data evolve according to a Brownian motion process on the tree, we show that our evolutionary average can be computed as convex combination of the species data. Thus, our approach, called the BranchManager, defines both an average and a novel taxon weighting scheme. We compare the BranchManager to two other methods, demonstrating why it exhibits desirable properties. In doing so, we devise a framework for comparison and introduce the concept of a representative point at which the average is situated.ConclusionThe BranchManager uses as its representative point the phylogenetic center of mass, a choice which has both intuitive and practical appeal. Because our average is intrinsic to both the dataset and to the phylogeny, we expect it and its corresponding weighting scheme to be useful in all sorts of studies where interspecies data need to be combined. Obvious applications include evolutionary studies of morphology, physiology or behaviour, but quantitative measures such as sequence hydrophobicity and gene expression level are amenable to our approach as well. Other areas of potential impact include motif discovery and vaccine design. A Java implementation of the BranchManager is available for download, as is a script written in the statistical language R.

Project description:BackgroundSurgical mortality indicators should be risk-adjusted when evaluating the performance of organisations. This study evaluated the performance of risk-adjustment models that used English hospital administrative data for 30-day mortality after neurosurgery.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2018. Organisational-level 30-day mortality was calculated for selected subspecialties (neuro-oncology, neurovascular and trauma neurosurgery) and the overall cohort. Risk adjustment models were developed using multivariable logistic regression and incorporated various patient variables: age, sex, admission method, social deprivation, comorbidity and frailty indices. Performance was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration.ResultsThe cohort included 49,044 patients. Overall, 30-day mortality rate was 4.9%, with unadjusted organisational rates ranging from 3.2 to 9.3%. The variables in the best performing models varied for the subspecialties; for trauma neurosurgery, a model that included deprivation and frailty had the best calibration, while for neuro-oncology a model with these variables plus comorbidity performed best. For neurovascular surgery, a simple model of age, sex and admission method performed best. Levels of discrimination varied for the subspecialties (range: 0.583 for trauma and 0.740 for neurovascular). The models were generally well calibrated. Application of the models to the organisation figures produced an average (median) absolute change in mortality of 0.33% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.15-0.72) for the overall cohort model. Median changes for the subspecialty models were 0.29% (neuro-oncology, IQR 0.15-0.42), 0.40% (neurovascular, IQR 0.24-0.78) and 0.49% (trauma neurosurgery, IQR 0.23-1.68).ConclusionsReasonable risk-adjustment models for 30-day mortality after neurosurgery procedures were possible using variables from HES, although the models for trauma neurosurgery performed less well. Including a measure of frailty often improved model performance.

Dataset Information

When Average Isn't Good Enough: Identifying Meaningful Subgroups in Clinical Data.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Supplementary information

Publications

When Average Isn't Good Enough: Identifying Meaningful Subgroups in Clinical Data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets