Modeling multiple correlated end‐organ disease trajectories: A tutorial for multistate and joint models with applications in diabetes complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
State-of-the-art biostatistics methods allow for the simultaneous modeling of several correlated non-fatal disease processes over time, but there is no clear guidance on the optimal analysis in most settings. An example occurs in diabetes, where it is not known with certainty how microvascular complications of the eyes, kidneys, and nerves co-develop over time. In this article, we propose and contrast two general model frameworks for studying complications (sequential state and parallel trajectory frameworks) and review multivariate methods for their analysis, focusing on multistate and joint modeling. We illustrate these methods in a tutorial format using the long-term follow-up from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial and Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study public data repository. A formal comparison of prediction error and discrimination is included. Multistate models are particularly advantageous for determining the order and timing of complications, but require discretization of the longitudinal outcomes and possibly a very complex state space process. Intermittent observation of the states must be accounted for, and discretization is a probable disadvantage in this setting. In contrast, joint models can account for variations of continuous biomarkers over time and are particularly designed for modeling complex association structures between the complications and for performing dynamic predictions of an outcome of interest to inform clinical decisions (eg, a late-stage complication). We found that both models have helpful features that can better-inform our understanding of the complex trajectories that complications may take and can therefore help with decision making for patients presenting with diabetes complications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".