Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IT IS A CLICHE TO OBSERVE THAT EVERYONE LIVES IN A GLOBAL economy. Anyone who travels internationally can see how rapidly the world is becoming similar in terms of shops, goods, and services. Perhaps it is timely to reengage physicians in thediscussion of international comparativedata about health care and to ask why the United States is so provincial in designing the systems by which care is delivered. Recently the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published Health at a Glance 2009, the annual compilation of health statistics from 30 countries. Even though most of the data are from 2007, these statistics provide revealing snapshots of various aspects of health and health systems, especially when comparing several US statistics to comparable statistics from other countries. Seventeen comparisons were selected to be representative of the different concepts (health status, nonmedical determinants of health, health work force, health care activities, quality of care, and health expenditures) that are covered in the OECD report. The comparisons (reported as United States; another country) are as follows. 1. Life expectancy in the United States is 78.1 years; in Switzerland, it is 81.9 years. 2. Years of life lost before age 70 per 100 000 men is 6291; in Italy, it is 3605. 3. The age-standardized ischemic heart mortality rate per 100 000 males is 145; in France, it is 54. 4. The percentage of newborns weighing less than 2500 g is 8.3%; in Ireland, it is 5%. 5. The percentage of children aged 11 to 15 years who are overweight or obese is 29.8%; in Belgium, it is 10.5%. 6. The number of practicing physicians per 1000 population is 2.4; in Belgium, it is 4.0. 7. The percentage of US physicians who are non-US trained is 25.9%; in the Netherlands, the percentage of non-Netherlands−trained physicians is 6.3%. 8. The ratio of the self-employed specialist’s average salary to the average salary of a full-time employee is 5.6:1; in Germany, the ratio is 4.1:1. For a selfemployed general practitioner, the comparable ratio is 3.7:1; in Canada, it is 3.1:1. 9. The number of physician consultations per capita is 3.8; in Germany, it is 7.5, and in Japan, it is 13.6. 10. The number of consultations per physician per year (data are from administrative sources and include visits in physician offices, hospital outpatient clinics, or patient homes) is 1570; in Korea, it is 7251 and in Canada, it is 3335 (fee-for-service visits only). 11. The number of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines per 1 000 000 of population is 25.9; in Japan, it is 40.1; in Canada, it is 6.7. 12. The number of MRI examinations per 1000 population is 91.2; in Canada, the number is 31.2. 13. The hospital discharge rate is 126 per 1000; in France, it is 274. 14. The coronary revascularization rate is 521 per 100 000; in Switzerland, it is 144 and in Ireland, it is 128. 15. The number of patients treated for end-stage renal failureis169per100 000population; intheNetherlands, it is 77. 16. The age-sex standardized in-hospital death rate for acute myocardial infarction is 5.1%; in Sweden, it is 2.9%. 17. Health expenditures are 16.0% of gross domestic product; in France, 11% and in Ireland, 7.6%.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,070 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,025 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,015 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,027 | 0,012 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».