Multimorbidity Clusters: Clustering Binary Data From Multimorbidity Clusters: Clustering Binary Data From a Large Administrative Medical Database
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our purpose in this article is to describe and illustrate the application of cluster analysis to identify clinically relevant multimorbidity groups. Multimorbidity is the co-occurrence of 2 or more illnesses within a single person, which raises the question whether consistent, clinically useful multimorbidity groups exist among sets of chronic illnesses. Our purpose in this article is to describe and illustrate the application of cluster analysis to identify clinically relevant multimorbidity groups. Application of cluster analysis involves a sequence of critical methodological and analytic decisions that influence the quality and meaning of the clusters produced. We illustrate the application of cluster analysis to identify multimorbidity clusters in a set of 45 chronic illnesses in primary care patients (N = 1,327,328), with 2 or more chronic conditions, served by the Veterans Health Administration. Six clinically useful multimorbidity clusters were identified: a Metabolic Cluster, an Obesity Cluster, a Liver Cluster, a Neurovascular Cluster, a Stress Cluster and a Dual Diagnosis Cluster. Cluster analysis appears to be a useful technique for identifying multiple disease clusters and patterns of multimorbidity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it