Co-occurrence of medical conditions: Exposing patterns through probabilistic topic modeling of snomed codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients associated with multiple co-occurring health conditions often face aggravated complications and less favorable outcomes. Co-occurring conditions are especially prevalent among individuals suffering from kidney disease, an increasingly widespread condition affecting 13% of the general population in the US. This study aims to identify and characterize patterns of co-occurring medical conditions in patients employing a probabilistic framework. Specifically, we apply topic modeling in a non-traditional way to find associations across SNOMED-CT codes assigned and recorded in the EHRs of >13,000 patients diagnosed with kidney disease. Unlike most prior work on topic modeling, we apply the method to codes rather than to natural language. Moreover, we quantitatively evaluate the topics, assessing their tightness and distinctiveness, and also assess the medical validity of our results. Our experiments show that each topic is succinctly characterized by a few highly probable and unique disease codes, indicating that the topics are tight. Furthermore, inter-topic distance between each pair of topics is typically high, illustrating distinctiveness. Last, most coded conditions grouped together within a topic, are indeed reported to co-occur in the medical literature. Notably, our results uncover a few indirect associations among conditions that have hitherto not been reported as correlated in the medical literature.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".