MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409239455 · doi:10.2196/69138

Prevalence of Multiple Chronic Conditions Among Adults in the All of Us Research Program: Exploratory Analysis

2025· article· en· W4409239455 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xintong Li, Caitlin Dreisbach, Carolina M. Gustafson, Komal Patel Murali, Theresa A. Koleck

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPreprintExploratory researchPsychologyExploratory analysisGerontologyEnvironmental healthMedicineComputer scienceData scienceSociologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The growing prevalence of multiple chronic conditions (MCC) has significant impacts on health care systems and quality of life. Understanding the prevalence of MCC throughout adulthood offers valuable insights into the evolving burden of chronic diseases and provides strategies for more effective health care outcomes. Objective: This study estimated the prevalence and combinations of MCC among adult participants enrolled in the All of Us (AoU) Research Program, especially studying the variations across age categories. Methods: We conducted an exploratory analysis using electronic health record (EHR) data from adult participants (N=242,828) in the version 7 Controlled Tier AoU Research Program data release. Data analysis was conducted using Python in a Jupyter notebook environment within the AoU Researcher Workbench. Descriptive statistics included condition frequencies, the number of chronic conditions per participant, and prevalence according to age categories. The presence of a chronic condition was determined by documentation of one or more ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) codes for the respective condition. Age categories were established and aligned with diagnosis dates and stages of adulthood (early adulthood: 18-39 years; middle adulthood: 40-49 years; late middle adulthood: 50-64 years; late adulthood: 65-74 years; advanced old age: 75-89 years). Results: Our findings demonstrated that approximately 76% (n=183,753) of AoU participants were diagnosed with MCC, with over 40% (n=98,885) having 6 or more conditions and prevalence increasing with age (from 33.78% in early adulthood to 68.04% in advanced old age). The most frequently occurring MCC combinations varied by age category. Participants aged 18-39 years primarily presented mental health-related MCC combinations (eg, anxiety and depressive disorders; n=845), whereas those aged 40-64 years frequently had combinations of physical conditions such as fibromyalgia, chronic pain, fatigue, and arthritis (204 in middle adulthood and 457 in late middle adulthood). In late adulthood and advanced old age, hyperlipidemia and hypertension were the most commonly occurring MCC combinations (n=200 and n=59, respectively). Conclusions: We report notable prevalence of MCC throughout adulthood and variability in MCC combinations by age category in AoU participants. The significant prevalence of MCC underscores a considerable public health challenge, revealed by distinct condition combinations that shift across different life stages. Early adulthood is characterized predominantly by mental health conditions, transitioning to cardiometabolic and physical health conditions in middle, late, and advanced ages. These findings highlight the need for targeted, innovative care modalities and population health initiatives to address the burden of MCC throughout adulthood.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207