Patterns of multimorbidity in primary care electronic health records: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundMultimorbidity, the coexistence of multiple chronic conditions in an individual, is a complex phenomenon that is highly prevalent in primary care settings, particularly in older individuals. This systematic review summarises the current evidence on multimorbidity patterns identified in primary care electronic health record (EHR) data.MethodsThree databases were searched from inception to April 2022 to identify studies that derived original multimorbidity patterns from primary care EHR data. The quality of the included studies was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.ResultsSixteen studies were included in this systematic review, none of which was of low quality. Most studies were conducted in Spain, and only one study was conducted outside of Europe. The prevalence of multimorbidity (i.e. two or more conditions) ranged from 14.0% to 93.9%. The most common stratification variable in disease clustering models was sex, followed by age and calendar year. Despite significant heterogeneity in clustering methods and disease classification tools, consistent patterns of multimorbidity emerged. Mental health and cardiovascular patterns were identified in all studies, often in combination with diseases of other organ systems (e.g. neurological, endocrine).DiscussionThese findings emphasise the frequent coexistence of physical and mental health conditions in primary care, and provide useful information for the development of targeted preventive and management strategies. Future research should explore mechanisms underlying multimorbidity patterns, prioritise methodological harmonisation to facilitate the comparability of findings, and promote the use of EHR data globally to enhance our understanding of multimorbidity in more diverse populations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".