MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793863401 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018680

Model-based recursive partitioning to identify risk clusters for metabolic syndrome and its components: findings from the International Mobility in Aging Study

2018· article· en· W2793863401 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Catherine M. Pirkle, Yan Yan Wu, Marı́a Victoria Zunzunegui, José Fernándo Gómez

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do NorteUniversidad de CaldasQueen's University
KeywordsRecursive partitioningMedicineGerontologyCluster (spacecraft)Metabolic syndromeEpidemiologyDemographyLongitudinal studyLife course approachObesityPsychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Conceptual models underpinning much epidemiological research on ageing acknowledge that environmental, social and biological systems interact to influence health outcomes. Recursive partitioning is a data-driven approach that allows for concurrent exploration of distinct mixtures, or clusters, of individuals that have a particular outcome. Our aim is to use recursive partitioning to examine risk clusters for metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components, in order to identify vulnerable populations. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a prospective longitudinal cohort called the International Mobility in Aging Study (IMIAS). SETTING: IMIAS includes sites from three middle-income countries-Tirana (Albania), Natal (Brazil) and Manizales (Colombia)-and two from Canada-Kingston (Ontario) and Saint-Hyacinthe (Quebec). PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling male and female adults, aged 64-75 years (n=2002). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We apply recursive partitioning to investigate social and behavioural risk factors for MetS and its components. Model-based recursive partitioning (MOB) was used to cluster participants into age-adjusted risk groups based on variabilities in: study site, sex, education, living arrangements, childhood adversities, adult occupation, current employment status, income, perceived income sufficiency, smoking status and weekly minutes of physical activity. RESULTS: 43% of participants had MetS. Using MOB, the primary partitioning variable was participant sex. Among women from middle-incomes sites, the predicted proportion with MetS ranged from 58% to 68%. Canadian women with limited physical activity had elevated predicted proportions of MetS (49%, 95% CI 39% to 58%). Among men, MetS ranged from 26% to 41% depending on childhood social adversity and education. Clustering for MetS components differed from the syndrome and across components. Study site was a primary partitioning variable for all components except HDL cholesterol. Sex was important for most components. CONCLUSION: MOB is a promising technique for identifying disease risk clusters (eg, vulnerable populations) in modestly sized samples.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.324 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207