The Multimorbidity Cluster Analysis Tool: Identifying Combinations and Permutations of Multiple Chronic Diseases Using a Record-Level Computational Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity, or the co-occurrence of multiple chronic health conditions within an individual, is an increasingly dominant presence and burden in modern health care systems. To fully capture its complexity, further research is needed to uncover the patterns and consequences of these co-occurring health states. As such, the Multimorbidity Cluster Analysis Tool and the accompanying Multimorbidity Cluster Analysis Toolkit have been created to allow researchers to identify distinct clusters that exist within a sample of participants or patients living with multimorbidity. Development: The Tool and Toolkit were developed at Western University in London, Ontario, Canada. This open-access computational program (JAVA code and executable file) was developed and tested to support an analysis of thousands of individual records and up to 100 disease diagnoses or categories. APPLICATION: The computational program can be adapted to the methodological elements of a research project, including type of data, type of chronic disease reporting, measurement of multimorbidity, sample size and research setting. The computational program will identify all existing, and mutually exclusive, combinations and permutations within the dataset. An application of this computational program is provided as an example, in which more than 75,000 individual records and 20 chronic disease categories resulted in the detection of 10,411 unique combinations and 24,647 unique permutations among female and male patients. DISCUSSION: The Tool and Toolkit are now available for use by researchers interested in exploring the complexities of multimorbidity. Its careful use, and the comparison between results, will be valuable additions to the nuanced understanding 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".