How to Design and Evaluate Interventions to Improve Outcomes for Patients with Multimorbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multimorbidity is a major challenge for patients and healthcare providers. The limited evidence of the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity means that there is a need for much more research and trials of potential interventions. Here we present a consensus view from a group of international researchers working to improve care for people with multimorbidity to guide future studies of interventions. We suggest that there is a need for careful consideration of whom to include, how to target interventions that address specific problems and that do not add to treatment burden, and selecting outcomes that matter both to patients and the healthcare system. Innovative design of these interventions will be necessary as many will be introduced in service settings and it will be important to ensure methodological rigour, relevance to service delivery, and generalizability across healthcare systems. Journal of Comorbidity 2013;3:10-17.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.083 | 0.225 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".