Measuring Multimorbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adults have a higher prevalence of multimorbidity-or having multiple chronic health conditions-than having a single condition in isolation. Researchers, health care providers, and health policymakers find it challenging to decide upon the most appropriate assessment tool from the many available multimorbidity measures. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe a broad range of instruments and data sources available to assess multimorbidity and offer guidance about selecting appropriate measures. DESIGN: Instruments were reviewed and guidance developed during a special expert workshop sponsored by the National Institutes of Health on September 25-26, 2018. RESULTS: Workshop participants identified 4 common purposes for multimorbidity measurement as well as the advantages and disadvantages of 5 major data sources: medical records/clinical assessments, administrative claims, public health surveys, patient reports, and electronic health records. Participants surveyed 15 instruments and 2 public health data systems and described characteristics of the measures, validity, and other features that inform tool selection. Guidance on instrument selection includes recommendations to match the purpose of multimorbidity measurement to the measurement approach and instrument, review available data sources, and consider contextual and other related constructs to enhance the overall measurement of multimorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of multimorbidity measurement can be enhanced with appropriate measurement selection, combining data sources and special considerations for fully capturing multimorbidity burden in underrepresented racial/ethnic populations, children, individuals with multiple Adverse Childhood Events and older adults experiencing functional limitations, and other geriatric syndromes. The increased availability of comprehensive electronic health record systems offers new opportunities not available through other data sources.
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 | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".