Clustering-Based Outcome Models for Clinical Studies: A Scoping Review

Johannes Vilsmeier; Fabian Eibensteiner; Franz König; Francois Mercier; Robin Ristl; Nigel Stallard; Marc Vandemeulebroecke; Sarah Zohar; Martin Posch

arXiv · 2603.06134

Clustering-Based Outcome Models for Clinical Studies: A Scoping Review

Johannes Vilsmeier·Fabian Eibensteiner·Franz König·Francois Mercier·Robin Ristl·Nigel Stallard·Marc Vandemeulebroecke·Sarah Zohar·Martin Posch

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This review provides a systematic overview of methods that combine covariate-based clustering of observational units (patients) with outcome models for clinical studies. We distinguish between informed-cluster models, where the outcome contributes to cluster formation, and agnostic-cluster models, where clustering is performed solely on covariates in a separate first step. Informed-cluster models include product partition models with covariates (PPMx), finite mixtures of regression models (FMR), and cluster-aware supervised learning (CluSL). Agnostic-cluster models encompass two-step procedures using either model-based or algorithmic clustering followed by cluster-specific regression models. Following a systematic search of Web of Science and PubMed, 55 records were identified that propose or evaluate such models. We describe the key models, summarise study characteristics, and present applications from biomedical and public health research. Clustering-based outcome models are particularly relevant for settings with high-dimensional covariates (e.g., biomarker panels and "omics") and heterogeneous patient populations. These models can support risk stratification and we discuss extensions to estimate subgroup-specific treatment effects. They are most valuable when the population is clustered in distinct regions of the covariate space that correspond to different outcome distributions. We discuss applications to rare disease research, covariate adjustment and borrowing from historical data, and subgroup-specific treatment effect estimation in clinical trials.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME stat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Johannes Vilsmeier, Fabian Eibensteiner, Franz König, Francois Mercier, Robin Ristl, Nigel Stallard, Marc Vandemeulebroecke, Sarah Zohar, Martin Posch. 2026-03-16. Clustering-Based Outcome Models for Clinical Studies: A Scoping Review. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.06134

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bias-Correction for Privacy-Protected Spatial Autoregressive Models with Application to Restaurant Network Analysis

Spatial autoregressive (SAR) models and their extensions are important tools for studying network effects. However, with an increasing emphasis on data privacy, data providers often implement protection measures that render standard SAR models inapplicable. In this study, we introduce a privacy-protected SAR model that incorporates noise into both the response and covariates to meet privacy requirements. With noise present in both components, the traditional quasi-maximum likelihood estimator becomes difficult to compute because the likelihood function cannot be directly formulated. To bypass this hurdle, we begin with a pseudo-likelihood approach, initially omitting the noise in the covariates. A Newton-Raphson algorithm is then applied to compute the estimator; however, the estimator is biased. To address this, we propose a bias-corrected Newton-Raphson-type algorithm that simultaneously accounts for noise in both the response and covariates. We further show, under appropriate regularity conditions, that the resulting estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal. To further enhance computational efficiency, we also develop a bias-corrected least squares estimator. Several extensions are discussed, and the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods is evaluated through extensive simulations. We apply the proposed methodology to restaurant transaction data from a third-party payment platform. Our method identifies a statistically significant competitive network effect among restaurants and further reveals meaningful restaurant-customer interaction patterns.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

A variational framework for modal estimation

Multivariate mode estimation arises in many statistical problems such as inverse problems, multimodal sampling, and density-based clustering, but becomes challenging in moderate to high dimensions, especially when the underlying density is not directly evaluable. We introduce GERVE (Gibbs-measure Entropy-Regularized Variational Estimation), a sample-based method for estimating multivariate modes by approximating Gibbs distributions directly from samples, without estimating or evaluating the density. GERVE uses Gaussian-mixture variational annealing and natural-gradient optimization, producing a mixture concentrated in high-density regions whose component responsibilities also provide a clustering of the observations. We prove theoretical guarantees in two regimes: as the Gibbs temperature goes to zero, the optimal variational mixture concentrates around the global modes of the population density; at fixed positive temperature, we prove existence, consistency, and asymptotic normality of empirical maximizers and propose a bootstrap procedure for uncertainty quantification. Simulations and a real-data experiment show that GERVE accurately recovers modes and produces meaningful clusters.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Objective Model Prior Probabilities in Variable Selection

For many years it was routine to use equal model prior probabilities in Bayesian model uncertainty analysis. At least twenty years ago it became clear that this was problematic, leading to support of much too large models in the increasingly huge model spaces being considered in genomics and other fields. A popular replacement was to adopt a suggestion of Harold Jeffreys for the variable selection problem in which a total of $k$ possible variables are being considered for inclusion in the model: give the collection of all models containing $d$ variables ($d = 0, . . . , k$) prior probability $1/(k + 1)$ and then divide this prior probability equally among the models in the collection. Many other choices of model prior probabilities that impose severe parsimony have also been introduced. We begin by reviewing the problems with using equal model prior probabilities and then discuss some serious problems with the Jeffreys choice. Finally, we introduce and study a number of objective alternative choices of model prior probabilities, from both numerical and theoretical perspectives.

stat.ME↗