ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Clustering methods for categorical time series and sequences : a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo provide an overview of clustering methods for categorical time series (CTS), a data structure common in epidemiology, sociology, biology, and marketing, and to support method selection according to data characteristics. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched PubMed (via MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to November 2024 for articles proposing and evaluating CTS clustering techniques. Methods were classified into three families-distance-based, feature-based, and model-based-and assessed for their ability to address challenges such as variable sequence length, multivariate data, continuous time, missing data, covariates, and large data volumes.
resultsOf 14,607 records retrieved, 124 articles describing 129 methods were included. Distance-based approaches, especially those using Optimal Matching, were most common, with 56 methods. We found 28 model-based methods, which covered a broader range of complex data structures such as multivariate data, continuous time and time-invariant covariates. We recorded 45 feature-based approaches, which were on average more scalable but less flexible. Fewer than half of the methods provided public implementations. A searchable Web application ( https://cts-clustering-scoping-review-7sxqj3sameqvmwkvnzfynz.streamlit.app/ ) was developed to support method selection. DISCUSSION: CTS clustering methods are highly heterogeneous in assumptions, capabilities, and scalability. Distance-based approaches dominate, but model-based methods offer richer modeling potential, while feature-based ones emphasize performance at the cost of flexibility.
conclusionThis review highlights methodological diversity and gaps in CTS clustering. The proposed typology and Web application aim to help researchers choose appropriate methods to choose appropriate methods for their data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.