ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Interpreting higher-order dependence in multimorbidity using cohort data: A partial information decomposition approach.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the context of multimorbidity, clinical features seldom act in isolation: symptoms, signs and behaviours form interdependent systems in which joint effects on function can be demonstrated only when features are considered together. We introduce an open, reusable workflow that detects and interprets these "together-only" interactions using bivariate Partial Information Decomposition (PID; two sources to one target), linking synergy-based dependence to the broader network of clinical variables rather than to a single target. The workflow estimates synergy with small-sample bias correction and summarises each pair in a Breadth-Uniformity-Synergy-Total (BUST) map: breadth of synergy across target variables (broad "generalist" vs narrow "specialist" patterns), cross-stratum uniformity across age, sex and multimorbidity (uniform vs subgroup-specific), synergy strength, and total shared information. Simple diagnostics contrast observed targets with additive expectations, revealing the specific joint configurations through which non-additive effects arise. Applied to data from the Longitudinal Ageing Study Amsterdam, we treated all health-related variables-covering symptoms, clinical signs, behaviours, lifestyle factors, and self-rated health indicators-as both sources and targets in the PID framework. This symmetric design permits synergy to be quantified for every pair of variables with respect to every other variable. The workflow identifies synergistic constellations that additive models miss. Multidomain cliques involving subjective health, pain, cognition and grip strength showed multiple non-additive configurations, whereas pairs such as alcohol use with grip strength exhibited focused, narrow but uniform synergy. Notably, the pairs with the strongest synergistic contributions were largely distinct from those with the highest total mutual information, indicating that synergy captures dependency structure overlooked by conventional association measures. Rather than a new measure, this work provides a bias-aware workflow that makes higher-order dependence visible and transferable. Our results support synergy-aware mapping as a practical complement to conventional multimorbidity analyses: it highlights specific combinations of routinely assessed features whose joint states may be especially informative across multiple health targets and therefore candidates for prioritised joint assessment and future multi-domain intervention studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.