Applying sequence analysis to uncover ‘real-world’ clinical pathways from routinely collected data: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to elucidate the methodological practices and reporting standards associated with sequence analysis (SA) for the identification of clinical pathways in real-world scenarios, using routinely collected data. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a methodological systematic review, searching five medical and health databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science. The search encompassed articles from the inception of these databases up to February 28, 2023. The search strategy comprised two distinctive sets of search terms, specifically focused on sequence analysis and clinical pathways. RESULTS: 19 studies met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review. Nearly 60% of the included studies were published in or after 2021, with a significant proportion originating from Canada (n = 7) and France (n = 5). 90% of the studies adhered to the fundamental SA steps. The optimal matching (OM) method emerged as the most frequently employed dissimilarity measure (63%), while agglomerative hierarchical clustering using Ward's linkage was the preferred clustering algorithm (53%). However, it is imperative to underline that a majority of the studies inadequately reported key methodological decisions pertaining to SA. CONCLUSION: This review underscores the necessity for enhanced transparency in reporting both data management procedures and key methodological choices within SA processes. The development of reporting guidelines and a robust appraisal tool tailored to assess the quality of SA would be invaluable for researchers in this field.
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 | 0.158 | 0.482 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".