2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.imu.2020.100492
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comorbidity network analysis and genetics of colorectal cancer

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this population-based study, the most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension, hyperplasia of the prostate, COPD, DM, and IHD. Similar results were found in previous studies in New Zealand and the United States, although the prevalence of comorbidities differed [ 8 , 17 , 46 ]. Variations of prevalence might be related to differences in the study population (eg, some studies focused only on elderly patients among whom comorbidities are more common) and the definition used for chronic conditions (eg, a 1-year look-back period for hospitalization data resulted in a lower yield of comorbid conditions).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…In this population-based study, the most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension, hyperplasia of the prostate, COPD, DM, and IHD. Similar results were found in previous studies in New Zealand and the United States, although the prevalence of comorbidities differed [ 8 , 17 , 46 ]. Variations of prevalence might be related to differences in the study population (eg, some studies focused only on elderly patients among whom comorbidities are more common) and the definition used for chronic conditions (eg, a 1-year look-back period for hospitalization data resulted in a lower yield of comorbid conditions).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…This study is a preliminary excursion into the various factors that influence the development of comorbidities post mild TBI. In the future, we intend to build upon this work to study pairwise disease co-occurrences at scale using graph networks and network analysis ( Fotouhi et al, 2018 ; Ljubic et al, 2020 ; Lee and Park, 2021 ). In doing so, a larger avenue of analysis is opened to visualize and understand disease comorbidities as differences in network structures across scales ( Fotouhi et al, 2018 ; Ljubic et al, 2020 ; Lee and Park, 2021 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the future, we intend to build upon this work to study pairwise disease co-occurrences at scale using graph networks and network analysis ( Fotouhi et al, 2018 ; Ljubic et al, 2020 ; Lee and Park, 2021 ). In doing so, a larger avenue of analysis is opened to visualize and understand disease comorbidities as differences in network structures across scales ( Fotouhi et al, 2018 ; Ljubic et al, 2020 ; Lee and Park, 2021 ). Comorbidities are understood as unique spatial organisations of statistically significant interconnected disease nodes with varying depths of connectedness ( Fotouhi et al, 2018 ; Kim et al, 2018 ; Lee and Park, 2021 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following the data filtering of mTBI subjects from the database (with age >=16 years), we computed phi correlation coefficient (φ) to quantify the strength of association between each unique pair of the 26 comorbidities (Fotouhi et al 2018; Ljubic et al 2020; Lee and Park 2021). φ is a non-parametric statistic suitable for analysing relationships between binary variables (Barabási et al 2011; Fotouhi et al 2018; Ljubic et al 2020; Lee and Park 2021). To compute φ, we first constructed a 2*2 matrix for each pair of diseases (D1, D2) as per Table 1.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%