MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302456407 · doi:10.1155/2016/7845438

Different Multimorbidity Measures Result in Varying Estimated Levels of Physical Quality of Life in Individuals with Multimorbidity: A Cross-Sectional Study in the General Population

2016· article· en· W2302456407 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Aline Ramond‐Roquin, Jeannie Haggerty, Mireille Lambert, José Almirall, Martin Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMed Research International · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)MultimorbidityCross-sectional studyCohortPopulationDemographyCohort studyGerontologySF-36DiseaseHealth related quality of lifeEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity adversely affects health-related quality of life. Methodological factors may impact the magnitude of this relationship. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how physical health-related quality of life varies in individuals with multimorbidity depending on the length of the list of candidate conditions considered. METHODS: Secondary analysis from PRECISE, a cohort study of the general adult population of Quebec, Canada. Multimorbidity was measured using the 21-chronic condition list from the Disease Burden Morbidity Assessment, and physical health-related quality of life was measured using the physical component summary (PCS) of SF-12v2. The PCS was calculated, (a) using 2 or more conditions from the 21-condition list (MM2+, 21) and then from a reduced 6-condition list (MM2+, 6) and (b) using three or more conditions from each list (MM3+, 21, and MM3+, 6). RESULTS: The analysis included 1,710 individuals (mean age 51.3, 40.5% men). Multimorbidity prevalence ranged from 63.8% (MM2+, 21 conditions) to 3.8% (MM3+, 6 conditions). The mean [95% CI] PCS dropped from 45.7 [CI: 45.0-46.3] (MM2+, 21) to 40.2 [CI: 38.7-41.8] (MM2+, 6) and from 44.2 [CI: 43.4-44.9] (MM3+, 21) to 34.8 [CI: 31.9-37.6] (MM3+, 6). CONCLUSION: The length of the list of candidate conditions considered has a great impact on the estimations of physical health-related quality of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.412
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.114 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioMed Research InternationalSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207