Application of Machine Learning in Multimorbidity Research: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity, defined as the coexistence of multiple chronic conditions, poses significant challenges to health care systems on a global scale. It is associated with increased mortality, reduced quality of life, and increased health care costs. The burden of multimorbidity is expected to worsen if no effective intervention is taken. Machine learning has the potential to assist in addressing these challenges since it offers advanced analysis and decision-making capabilities, such as disease prediction, treatment development, and clinical strategies. OBJECTIVE: This paper represents the protocol of a scoping review that aims to identify and explore the current literature concerning the use of machine learning for patients with multimorbidity. More precisely, the objective is to recognize various machine learning models, the patient groups involved, features considered, types of input data, the maturity of the machine learning algorithms, and the outcomes from these machine learning models. METHODS: The scoping review will be based on the guidelines of the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). Five databases (PubMed, Embase, IEEE, Web of Science, and Scopus) are chosen to conduct a literature search. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles, abstracts, and full texts of identified studies based on predefined eligibility criteria. Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation Ltd) will be used as a tool for managing and screening papers. Only studies that examine more than 1 chronic disease or individuals with a single chronic condition at risk of developing another will be included in the scoping review. Data from the included studies will be collected using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp). The focus of the data extraction will be on bibliographical information, objectives, study populations, types of input data, types of algorithm, performance, maturity of the algorithms, and outcome. RESULTS: The screening process will be presented in a PRISMA-ScR flow diagram. The findings of the scoping review will be conveyed through a narrative synthesis. Additionally, data extracted from the studies will be presented in more comprehensive formats, such as charts or tables. The results will be presented in a forthcoming scoping review, which will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this may be the first scoping review to investigate the use of machine learning in multimorbidity research. The goal of the scoping review is to summarize the field of literature on machine learning in patients with multiple chronic conditions, highlight different approaches, and potentially discover research gaps. The results will offer insights for future research within this field, contributing to developments that can enhance patient outcomes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/53761.
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 | 0.125 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.019 |
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".