Dataset Information

Cluster Analysis to Identify Possible Subgroups in Tinnitus Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In tinnitus treatment, there is a tendency to shift from a "one size fits all" to a more individual, patient-tailored approach. Insight in the heterogeneity of the tinnitus spectrum might improve the management of tinnitus patients in terms of choice of treatment and identification of patients with severe mental distress. The goal of this study was to identify subgroups in a large group of tinnitus patients.

Methods

Data were collected from patients with severe tinnitus complaints visiting our tertiary referral tinnitus care group at the University Medical Center Groningen. Patient-reported and physician-reported variables were collected during their visit to our clinic. Cluster analyses were used to characterize subgroups. For the selection of the right variables to enter in the cluster analysis, two approaches were used: (1) variable reduction with principle component analysis and (2) variable selection based on expert opinion.

Results

Various variables of 1,783 tinnitus patients were included in the analyses. Cluster analysis (1) included 976 patients and resulted in a four-cluster solution. The effect of external influences was the most discriminative between the groups, or clusters, of patients. The "silhouette measure" of the cluster outcome was low (0.2), indicating a "no substantial" cluster structure. Cluster analysis (2) included 761 patients and resulted in a three-cluster solution, comparable to the first analysis. Again, a "no substantial" cluster structure was found (0.2).

Conclusion

Two cluster analyses on a large database of tinnitus patients revealed that clusters of patients are mostly formed by a different response of external influences on their disease. However, both cluster outcomes based on this dataset showed a poor stability, suggesting that our tinnitus population comprises a continuum rather than a number of clearly defined subgroups.

SUBMITTER: van den Berge MJC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5377919 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims/hypothesisGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a heterogeneous condition. Given such variability among patients, the ability to recognise distinct GDM subgroups using routine clinical variables may guide more personalised treatments. Our main aim was to identify distinct GDM subtypes through cluster analysis using routine clinical variables, and analyse treatment needs and pregnancy outcomes across these subgroups.MethodsIn this cohort study, we analysed datasets from a total of 2682 women with GDM treated at two central European hospitals (1865 participants from Charité University Hospital in Berlin and 817 participants from the Medical University of Vienna), collected between 2015 and 2022. We evaluated various clustering models, including k-means, k-medoids and agglomerative hierarchical clustering. Internal validation techniques were used to guide best model selection, while external validation on independent test sets was used to assess model generalisability. Clinical outcomes such as specific treatment needs and maternal and fetal complications were analysed across the identified clusters.ResultsOur optimal model identified three clusters from routinely available variables, i.e. maternal age, pre-pregnancy BMI (BMIPG) and glucose levels at fasting and 60 and 120 min after the diagnostic OGTT (OGTT0, OGTT60 and OGTT120, respectively). Cluster 1 was characterised by the highest OGTT values and obesity prevalence. Cluster 2 displayed intermediate BMIPG and elevated OGTT0, while cluster 3 consisted mainly of participants with normal BMIPG and high values for OGTT60 and OGTT120. Treatment modalities and clinical outcomes varied among clusters. In particular, cluster 1 participants showed a much higher need for glucose-lowering medications (39.6% of participants, compared with 12.9% and 10.0% in clusters 2 and 3, respectively, p<0.0001). Cluster 1 participants were also at higher risk of delivering large-for-gestational-age infants. Differences in the type of insulin-based treatment between cluster 2 and cluster 3 were observed in the external validation cohort.Conclusions/interpretationOur findings confirm the heterogeneity of GDM. The identification of subgroups (clusters) has the potential to help clinicians define more tailored treatment approaches for improved maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Project description:The purpose of this secondary analysis was to test the hypothesis that an empirically derived psychological subgrouping scheme based on multiple Fear-Avoidance Model (FAM) constructs would provide additional capabilities for clinical outcomes in comparison with a single FAM construct.Patients (n=108) with acute or subacute low back pain enrolled in a clinical trial comparing behavioral physical therapy interventions to classification-based physical therapy completed baseline questionnaires for Pain Catastrophizing Scale, fear-avoidance beliefs [Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ)-physical activity scale (PA), FABQ work scale], and patient-specific fear (Fear of Daily Activities Questionnaire). Clinical outcomes included pain intensity and disability measured at baseline, 4 weeks, and 6 months. A hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis was used to create distinct cluster profiles among the FAM measures and discriminant analysis was used to interpret clusters. Changes in clinical outcomes were investigated with repeated measures analysis of variance and differences in results based on cluster membership were compared with FABQ-PA subgrouping used in the original trial.Three distinct FAM subgroups (Low-Risk, High Specific Fear, and High Fear and Catastrophizing) emerged from cluster analysis. Subgroups differed on baseline pain and disability (P<0.01) with the High Fear and Catastrophizing subgroup associated with greater pain than the Low-Risk subgroup (P<0.01) and the greatest disability (P<0.05). Subgroup×time interactions were detected for both pain and disability (P<0.05) with the High Fear and Catastrophizing subgroup reporting greater changes in pain and disability than other subgroups (P<0.05). In contrast, FABQ-PA subgroups used in the original trial were not associated with interactions for clinical outcomes.These data suggest that subgrouping based on multiple FAM measures may provide additional information on clinical outcomes in comparison with determining subgroup status by FABQ-PA alone. Subgrouping methods for patients with low back pain should include multiple psychological factors to further explore if patients can be matched with appropriate interventions.