Individualized Absolute Risk Calculations for Persons with Multiple Chronic Conditions: Embracing Heterogeneity, Causality, and Competing Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 75% of adults over the age of 65 years are affected by two or more chronic medical conditions. We provide a conceptual justification for individualized absolute risk calculators for competing patient-centered outcomes (PCO) (i.e. outcomes deemed important by patients) and patient reported outcomes (PRO) (i.e. outcomes patients report instead of physiologic test results). The absolute risk of an outcome is the probability that a person receiving a given treatment will experience that outcome within a pre-defined interval of time, during which they are simultaneously at risk for other competing outcomes. This allows for determination of the likelihood of a given outcome with and without a treatment. We posit that there are heterogeneity of treatment effects among patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) largely depends on those coexisting conditions. We outline the development of an individualized absolute risk calculator for competing outcomes using propensity score methods that strengthen causal inference for specific treatments. Innovations include the key concept that any given outcome may or may not concur with any other outcome and that these competing outcomes do not necessarily preclude other outcomes. Patient characteristics and MCC will be the primary explanatory factors used in estimating the heterogeneity of treatment effects on PCO and PRO. This innovative method may have wide-spread application for determining individualized absolute risk calculations for competing outcomes. Knowing the probabilities of outcomes in absolute terms may help the burgeoning population of patients with MCC who face complex treatment decisions.
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 | 0.068 | 0.256 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".