---
title: "Example clustering analysis"
output: rmarkdown::html_vignette
vignette: >
  %\VignetteIndexEntry{Example clustering analysis}
  %\VignetteEngine{knitr::rmarkdown}
  %\VignetteEncoding{UTF-8}
---
  
```{r, include = FALSE}
knitr::opts_chunk$set(
collapse = TRUE,
comment = "#>",
fig.width = 6
)
```

```{r setup, message = FALSE}
library(longmixr)
library(dplyr)
library(tidyr)
library(ggplot2)
library(ggalluvial)
library(FactoMineR)
library(factoextra)
library(lme4)
library(purrr)
```

# Introduction
This vignette gives an overview how to inspect and prepare the data for a
clustering analysis with `longmixr`, do the clustering and analyze the results.

# Consensus clustering
Consensus clustering tries to generate more robust clustering results. Instead
of doing the clustering once, the clustering is performed several times on
different subsets of the data. In every subset, for all pairs of subjects it is
recorded if they cluster together in the same cluster. The average of this
information is called the consensus matrix. The final clustering solution is
obtained by a hierarchical clustering step using the consensus matrix as its
distance matrix.

For an overview about the used consensus clustering methodology, see
[Monti, Stefano, et al. "Consensus clustering: a resampling-based method for class discovery and visualization of gene expression microarray data." Machine learning 52.1 (2003): 91-118.](https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:1023949509487.pdf)
The code and provided visualizations of `longmixr` is based on the
`ConsensusClusterPlus` package, [Wilkerson, Matthew D., and D. Neil Hayes. "ConsensusClusterPlus: a class discovery tool with confidence assessments and item tracking." Bioinformatics 26.12 (2010): 1572-1573.](https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq170)
In contrast to `ConsensusClusterPlus`, we use the package `flexmix`,
[Grün, Bettina, and Friedrich Leisch. "FlexMix version 2: finite mixtures with concomitant variables and varying and constant parameters." (2008): 1.](https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v028.i04), instead of hierarchical
clustering which allows us to model longitudinal data.

# Data
For the analysis, we use a simulated data set contained in `longmixr`. Please
note that `longmixr` can only deal with complete data sets.

```{r}
data("fake_questionnaire_data")
str(fake_questionnaire_data)
```

The data set contains observations of 100 subjects at four different time
points. The data was simulated in two groups which we try to recover in the
analysis. For every individual, we have the information of

- the age at the first time point
- questionnaire A which contains five items (or in other words variables) with
the categorical levels 1 - 5
- questionnaire B which contains five items (or in other words variables) with
the categorical levels 1 - 5
- questionnaire C which contains five continuous variables
- one additional cross-sectional continuous variable

Because the data set was simulated, it also contains the group variable from the
simulation. In your data set you typically don't have such a variable because
you don't know the groups. For the following analysis, the group variable is not
required.

## Overview
It is recommended to first get an overview about the data distribution:

Age:
```{r}
fake_questionnaire_data %>% 
  filter(visit == 1) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = age_visit_1)) +
  geom_histogram() +
  theme_bw()
```

The histogram shows no clear pattern in the age distribution.

Questionnaire A:
```{r}
fake_questionnaire_data %>% 
  mutate(visit = as.factor(visit)) %>% 
  select(visit, starts_with("questionnaire_A")) %>% 
  pivot_longer(
    cols = -visit,
    names_to = "item",
    values_to = "level"
  ) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = visit, fill = level)) +
  geom_bar() +
  theme_bw() +
  facet_wrap(~item)
```

For each of the five items of the questionnaire, the distribution of the
different levels (as counts) is shown for the four time points. The
distribution of the levels seems to change across the time points for all items.

Questionnaire B:
```{r}
fake_questionnaire_data %>% 
  mutate(visit = as.factor(visit)) %>% 
  select(visit, starts_with("questionnaire_B")) %>% 
  pivot_longer(
    cols = -visit,
    names_to = "item",
    values_to = "level"
  ) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = visit, fill = level)) +
  geom_bar() +
  theme_bw() +
  facet_wrap(~item)
```

For each of the five items of the questionnaire, the distribution of the
different levels (as counts) is shown for the four time points. The
distribution of the levels seems to change across the time points for some items.

Questionnaire C:
```{r}
fake_questionnaire_data %>% 
  mutate(visit = as.factor(visit)) %>% 
  select(visit, starts_with("questionnaire_C")) %>% 
  pivot_longer(
    cols = -visit,
    names_to = "variable",
    values_to = "value"
  ) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = visit, y = value, fill = visit)) +
  geom_boxplot() +
  theme_bw() +
  facet_wrap(~variable)
```

For each of the five variables of the questionnaire, the distribution is
shown for the four time points as boxplots. The distribution changes for some
variables across the time points.

`single_continuous_variable`:
```{r}
fake_questionnaire_data %>%
  # only use the values from the first visit as there is only one unique value
  # per subject
  filter(visit == 1) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(y = single_continuous_variable)) +
  geom_boxplot() +
  theme_bw() +
  theme(axis.ticks.x = element_blank(),
        axis.text.x = element_blank())
```

The distribution of this variable is shown as a boxplot.

# Dimension reduction
Especially if you have a lot of variables, it can make sense to reduce the
dimensionality for your analysis. For demonstration purposes, we apply a
dimension reduction approach also to the example data. For this, we use the
function `FAMD` from the package `FactoMineR`. It uses a similar approach as
PCA for categorical data. For better interpretability, we apply the dimension
reduction per questionnaire.

```{r}
quest_A_dim <- fake_questionnaire_data %>% 
  select(starts_with("questionnaire_A")) %>% 
  FAMD(ncp = 5, graph = FALSE)

quest_B_dim <- fake_questionnaire_data %>% 
  select(starts_with("questionnaire_B")) %>% 
  FAMD(ncp = 5, graph = FALSE)

quest_C_dim <- fake_questionnaire_data %>% 
  select(starts_with("questionnaire_C")) %>% 
  prcomp(scale = TRUE)
```

You can use the elbow plot method to visually determine the number of components
to include into the analysis. The following function plots the variance
explained by each component.

```{r, message = FALSE}
fviz_screeplot(quest_A_dim, main = "Questionnaire A")
```

In this case, we would only select the first three components as the others
explain only a small amount of variance.

```{r}
fviz_screeplot(quest_B_dim, main = "Questionnaire B")
```

From questionnaire B, we only include the first component.

```{r}
fviz_screeplot(quest_C_dim, main = "Questionnaire C")
```

From Questionnaire C, only include the first component.

Generate one data.frame for further use with the values of every individual in
the new dimension reduced space:

```{r}
quest_A_comp <- as.data.frame(quest_A_dim$ind$coord[, 1:3])
colnames(quest_A_comp) <- paste0("quest_A_", 1:3)
quest_B_comp <- as.data.frame(quest_B_dim$ind$coord[, 1])
colnames(quest_B_comp) <- paste0("quest_B_", 1)
quest_C_comp <- as.data.frame(quest_C_dim$x[, 1])
colnames(quest_C_comp) <- paste0("quest_C_", 1)

cluster_data <- bind_cols(
  data.frame(
    ID = fake_questionnaire_data$ID,
    visit = fake_questionnaire_data$visit,
    age = fake_questionnaire_data$age_visit_1
  ),
  quest_A_comp,
  quest_B_comp,
  quest_C_comp
)
```

## Variable importance
We can check how well the variables are correlated with the components and which
variables contribute the most to the components found in the dimension reduction
step. For the visualization, we use functions from the `factoextra` package.

Questionnaire A:

```{r}
fviz_famd_var(quest_A_dim, repel = TRUE)
fviz_contrib(quest_A_dim, "var", axes = 1)
fviz_contrib(quest_A_dim, "var", axes = 2)
fviz_contrib(quest_A_dim, "var", axes = 3)
```

Questionnaire B:

```{r}
fviz_famd_var(quest_B_dim, repel = TRUE)
fviz_contrib(quest_B_dim, "var", axes = 1)
```

Questionnaire C:

```{r}
fviz_pca_var(quest_C_dim, repel = TRUE)
fviz_contrib(quest_C_dim, "var", axes = 1)
```


# Effect of confounders
There can be confounders that have a known effect on your outcome which you
don't want to analyze. One solution is to first "regress them out" in a linear
model and only work with the resulting residuals. The following steps are done
with the components from the dimension reduction.

One example of the age effect in questionnaire A:

```{r}
ggplot(cluster_data, aes(x = age, y = quest_A_1)) +
  geom_point() +
  geom_smooth(method = "lm") +
  ylab("Questionnaire A dimension 1") +
  theme_bw()
```

As a simple approach we use linear mixed models to regress out the age effect in
all components used for the clustering:

```{r}
# helper function to regress out the effect
generate_residuals <- function(x, age, ID) {
  data <- data.frame(
    x = x,
    age = age,
    ID = ID)
  model <- lmer(x ~ age + (1 | ID), data = data)
  resid <- residuals(model, type = "response")
  names(resid) <- NULL
  resid
}

cluster_data_resid <- cluster_data %>% 
  # apply the function to all variables ending with a number
  mutate(across(matches("[1-9]$"),
                ~generate_residuals(x = .x, age = age, ID = ID),
                .names = "{.col}_resid")) %>% 
  select(ID, visit, ends_with("resid"), age)
```

After the regression, the linear effect of age is not contained anymore in the
residuals.

```{r}
ggplot(cluster_data_resid, aes(x = age, y = quest_A_1_resid)) +
  geom_point() +
  geom_smooth(method = "lm") +
  ylab("Residuals of questionnaire A dimension 1") +
  theme_bw()
```


# Clustering
First we need to set up the models that are estimated and used to assign each
observation a cluster. For every variable, one model is estimated.

First define the names of the variables. In our case, these are the components
derived from the questionnaires and adjusted for the age effect:

```{r}
response_names <- c(paste0("quest_A_", 1:3, "_resid"),
                    paste0("quest_B_", 1, "_resid"),
                    paste0("quest_C_", 1, "_resid"))
```

Now, for every variable a `FLXMRmgcv` model is set up because this accommodates
the longitudinal structure of our data. However, the `flexmix` framework is
very flexible and the model can be changed to any other `FLXMR` model.

```{r}
list_models <- lapply(response_names, function(x) {
  flexmix::FLXMRmgcv(as.formula(paste0(x, " ~ .")))
})
```

The `~ .` part means that actual model (how the outcome is modeled from the
independent variables) is not yet defined. This will be defined as an argument
to the `longitudinal_consensus_cluster` function.

We use the function with the following parameters:

- `data = cluster_data_resid` the data as a `data.frame` with observations in
the rows and the variables in the columns.
- `id_column = ID` defines which variable in the provided data is the ID column
to correctly name the output.
- `max_k = 3` the maximum number of clusters that is tried out; in this case
solutions with 2 and 3 clusters will be tried out. You should set this
argument as high as you expect that an optimal solution could be. Using a higher
`max_k` increases the computational cost.
- `reps = 5` the number how often the data is subsetted and the clustering is
repeated (in other words: the number of subsets). Here, we use a small number to
keep the run time short for the example, in general the higher the number the
more accurate the results.
- `p_item = 0.8` the fraction of observations that is included in a subset (for
a definition of subset see the above `reps` description).
- `model_list = list_models` the predefined `flexmix` models used for the
clustering.
- `flexmix_formula = as.formula("~s(visit, k = 4) | ID")` formula how the
response should be modeled; here the outcome is modeled as a smooth function of
the time while taking the repeated measurements of one subject into account.
- `final_linkage = "ward.D2"` the linkage that is used for the final hierarchical
clustering step on the consensus matrix.

```{r}
set.seed(2378)
cluster_model <- longitudinal_consensus_cluster(data = cluster_data_resid,
                                                id_column = "ID",
                                                max_k = 3,
                                                reps = 5,
                                                p_item = 0.8,
                                                model_list = list_models,
                                                flexmix_formula = as.formula("~s(visit, k = 4) | ID"),
                                                final_linkage = "ward.D2")
```

# Analyze the clustering
## Determine the best clustering
First, plot the analysis plots provided by `longmixr`. They are the same
provided by the `ConsensusClusterPlus` package which is the basis for `longmixr`:

```{r}
plot(cluster_model)
```

Especially useful are the consensus matrix plots and the item-consensus plot.
The consensus matrix plot shows for every pair of subjects/IDs how often they
are clustered together in one cluster. Every row and every column represents
one subject. A value of 1 (dark blue) means that these two subjects
always cluster together, a value of 0 (white) means that these two subjects
never cluster together. The first plot shows only the legend for the consensus
matrix plots without any other information.

For an optimal solution, you want to see clearly separated clusters that are all
dark blue. In this example, this is the case for a two cluster solution and less
so for a three cluster solution.

The consensus matrix plots also mention the "median flexmix clusters". This is
because in some cases, the flexmix model does not find as many clusters as
specified but less. To get a short overview about this, we include the median
number of clusters. For a more detailed analysis, the information about the
found number of clusters is contained in the return value for every cluster
solution as `found_flexmix_clusters`.

In the consensus cumulative distribution function (CDF) plot, the optimal cases
shows a straight horizontal line with a sharp increase at 0 and 1. In the
example, this is more fulfilled for the two cluster solution than the three
cluster solution. However, the sharp increase at 0 is not visible in our
example.

The Delta area plot is generated to be consistent with `ConsensusClusterPlus`,
but we don't recommend to use it.

The tracking plot shows for every subject to which cluster it was assigned to
across the different possible cluster solutions with different numbers of
clusters.

The item-consensus plot shows every item (subject) on the x-axis. For every
subject, the mean consensus value with all other subjects assigned to one
cluster is calculated.

In the item-consensus plot for two clusters, the mean item consensus for all
subjects assigned to cluster 1 are only calculated for cluster 1, because no
subject is assigned to cluster 2. Accordingly, the mean item consensus for all
subjects assigned to cluster 2 are only calculated for cluster 2, because no
subject is assigned to cluster 1.

In the item-consensus plot for three clusters, some subjects are assigned to
different clusters in different subsampling steps. Therefore, for these items
the mean item-consensus is shown for cluster 2 and cluster 3. In general, for a
given subject you want to have a high item-consensus for one cluster and low
item-consensus for all other clusters.

If you only want to plot certain plots and not all, you can select them with the
`which_plots` argument. For more information, see `help(plot.lcc)`.

In the example, the item-consensus plots suggest a two cluster solution fits the
data best.

## Visualize the clusters
First extract the cluster information (only for the two cluster solution) from
the model:
```{r}
cluster_assignments <- get_clusters(cluster_model, number_clusters = 2)
```

The extracted assignments `data.frame` also includes the ID column with the name
specified by the user in the `longitudinal_consensus_cluster` function, so we
can easily join it with the original data:

```{r}
original_data <- fake_questionnaire_data %>% 
  left_join(cluster_assignments, by = "ID")
cluster_data_resid <- cluster_data_resid %>% 
  left_join(cluster_assignments, by = "ID")
```

### Components used in clustering
Now the components used for the clustering can be visualized as spaghetti plots.
For this, we can use the `plot_spaghetti` function where we specify which
variables should be plotted. The ID variable is automatically derived from the
`longmixr` model, but we need to provide the variable that depicts the time.

Questionnaire A:
```{r, message = FALSE}
plot_spaghetti(
  model = cluster_model,
  data = cluster_data_resid,
  variable_names = c("quest_A_1_resid", "quest_A_2_resid", "quest_A_3_resid"),
  time_variable = "visit",
  number_of_clusters = 2
)
```

Questionnaire B:
```{r, message = FALSE}
plot_spaghetti(
  model = cluster_model,
  data = cluster_data_resid,
  variable_names = c("quest_B_1_resid"),
  time_variable = "visit",
  number_of_clusters = 2
)
```

Questionnaire C:
```{r, message = FALSE}
plot_spaghetti(
  model = cluster_model,
  data = cluster_data_resid,
  variable_names = c("quest_C_1_resid"),
  time_variable = "visit",
  number_of_clusters = 2
)
```

### Original data
Most of the original variables are categorical variables. For a better
visualization of the change over time, we use alluvial plots and plot every
item (variable) separately with `plot_alluvial`.

Questionnaire A:
```{r}
colnames(original_data)[grepl("^questionnaire_A", colnames(original_data))] %>% 
  walk(~print(plot_alluvial(model = cluster_model, data = original_data,
                      variable_name = .x, time_variable = "visit",
                      number_of_clusters = 2)))
```

Questionnaire B:
```{r}
colnames(original_data)[grepl("^questionnaire_B", colnames(original_data))] %>% 
  walk(~print(plot_alluvial(model = cluster_model, data = original_data,
                      variable_name = .x, time_variable = "visit",
                      number_of_clusters = 2)))
```

Questionnaire C:

As questionnaire C contains continuous variables, use again a spaghetti plot:

```{r, message = FALSE}
colnames(original_data)[grepl("^questionnaire_C", colnames(original_data))] %>% 
  walk(~print(plot_spaghetti(model = cluster_model, data = original_data,
                      variable_names = .x, time_variable = "visit",
                      number_of_clusters = 2)))
```

The comparison of the two clusters regarding the original variables show
differences how some items of the categorical questionnaires and some variables
of the continuous questionnaires differ between the two clusters.

### Cluster comparison
As a final step, variables that were not used in the clustering, for example
cross-sectional variables, can be compared across the found clusters. In this
case, `single_continuous_variable` only has one value per subject and was left
out from the clustering:

```{r, message = FALSE}
original_data %>% 
  filter(visit == 1) %>% 
  mutate(cluster = as.factor(assignment_num_clus_2)) %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x = cluster, y = single_continuous_variable,
             fill = cluster)) +
  geom_boxplot() +
  theme_bw()
```

Also the left-out variable shows a different behavior between the two clusters.
