The incidence of multimorbidity and patterns in accumulation of chronic conditions: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multimorbidity, the presence of 1+ chronic condition in an individual, remains one of the greatest challenges to health on a global scale. Although the prevalence of multimorbidity has been well-established, its incidence is not fully understood. This systematic review determined the incidence of multimorbidity across the lifespan; the order in which chronic conditions accumulate to result in multimorbidity; and cataloged methods used to determine and report accumulation of chronic conditions resulting in multimorbidity. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane electronic databases. Two independent reviewers evaluated studies for inclusion and performed quality assessments. Of 36 included studies, there was high heterogeneity in study design and operational definitions of multimorbidity. Studies reporting incidence (n = 32) reported a median incidence rate of 30.7 per 1,000 person-years (IQR 39.5 per 1,000 person-years) and a median cumulative incidence of 2.8% (IQR 28.7%). Incidence was notably higher for persons with older age and 1+ chronic conditions at baseline. Studies reporting patterns in accumulation of chronic conditions (n = 5) reported hypertensive and heart diseases, and diabetes, as among the common starting conditions resulting in later multimorbidity. Methods used to discern patterns were highly heterogenous, ranging from the use of latent growth trajectories to divisive cluster analyses, and presentation using alluvial plots to cluster trajectories. Studies reporting the incidence of multimorbidity and patterns in accumulation of chronic conditions vary greatly in study designs and definitions used. To allow for more accurate estimations and comparison, studies must be transparent and consistent in operational definitions of multimorbidity applied.
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 | 0.011 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".