Abstract
BACKGROUND: Network analysis, commonly used to describe the patterns of multimorbidity, uses the strength of association between conditions as weight to classify conditions into communities and calculate centrality statistics. Our aim was to examine the robustness of the results to the choice of weight. METHODS: Data used on 27 chronic conditions listed on Australian death certificates for women aged 85+. Five statistics were calculated to measure the association between 351 possible pairs: odds ratio (OR), lift, phi correlation, Salton cosine index (SCI), and normalised-joint frequency of pairs (NF). Network analysis was performed on the 10% of pairs with the highest weight according to each definition, the 'top pairs'. RESULTS: Out of 56 'top pairs' identified, 13 ones were consistent across all statistics. In networks of OR and lift, three of the conditions which did not join communities were among the top five most prevalent conditions. Networks based on phi and NF had one or two conditions not part of any community. For the SCI statistics, all three conditions which did not join communities had prevalence below 3%. Low prevalence conditions were more likely to have high degree in networks of OR and lift but not SCI. CONCLUSION: Use of different statistics to estimate weights leads to different networks. For exploratory purposes, one may apply alternative weights to identify a large list of pairs for further assessment in independent studies. However, when the aim is to visualise the data in a robust and parsimonious network, only pairs which are selected by multiple statistics should be visualised.