Systematic review and meta-analysis of disease clustering in multimorbidity: a study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity is defined as the presence of two or more chronic diseases. Co-occurring diseases can have synergistic negative effects, and are associated with significant impacts on individual health outcomes and healthcare systems. However, the specific effects of diseases in combination will vary between different diseases. Identifying which diseases are most likely to co-occur in multimorbidity is an important step towards population health assessment and development of policies to prevent and manage multimorbidity more effectively and efficiently. The goal of this project is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of disease clustering in multimorbidity, in order to identify multimorbid disease clusters and test their stability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will review data from studies of multimorbidity that have used data clustering methodologies to reveal patterns of disease co-occurrence. We propose a network-based meta-analytic approach to perform meta-clustering on a select list of chronic diseases that are identified as priorities for multimorbidity research. We will assess the stability of obtained disease clusters across the research literature to date, in order to evaluate the strength of evidence for specific disease patterns in multimorbidity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethics approval as the work is based on published research studies. The study findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated through conference presentations and meetings with knowledge users in health systems and public health spheres. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023411249.
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 | 0.088 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.007 |
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".