Multimorbidity patterns, sociodemographic characteristics, and mortality: Data science insights from low-resource settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multimorbidity data typically are analyzed by tallying disease counts, an approach that overlooks nuanced relationships among conditions. We identified clusters of multimorbidity and subpopulations with varying risks and examined their association with all-cause mortality using a data-driven approach. We analyzed 8-year follow-up data of people aged 35 years or older who were part of the CRONICAS Cohort Study, a multisite cohort from Peru. First, we used Partitioning Around Medoids and multidimensional scaling to identify multimorbidity clusters. We then estimated the association between multimorbidity clusters and all-cause mortality. Second, we identified subpopulations using finite mixture modeling. Our analysis revealed three clusters of chronic conditions: respiratory (cluster 1: bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma); lifestyle, hypertension, depression, and diabetes (cluster 2); and circulatory (cluster 3: heart disease, stroke, and peripheral artery disease). Although only the cluster comprising circulatory diseases showed a significant association with all-cause mortality in the overall population, we identified two latent subpopulations (named I and II) exhibiting differential mortality risks associated with specific multimorbidity clusters. These findings underscore the importance of considering multimorbidity clusters and sociodemographic characteristics in understanding mortality risks. They also highlight the need for tailored interventions to address the unique needs of different subpopulations living with multimorbidity to reduce mortality risks effectively.
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 | 0.014 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".