MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2167854976 · doi:10.1097/01.hjr.0000102816.74402.12

MONICA'S quarter century

2003· editorial· en· W2167854976 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hugh Tunstall‐Pedoe

Notice bibliographique

RevueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation · 2003
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésQuarter (Canadian coin)HistoryArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Following the seminal conference in Bethesda, USA in 1978 on the Decline in Coronary Heart Disease Mortality [1], organized by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the Cardiovascular Diseases Unit at the World Health Organization convened a series of meetings of medical researchers to plan a collaborative study of the mechanism of changing trends. These meetings resulted in the World Health Organization MONICA Project (derived from ‘Multinational MONItoring of Trends and Determinants in CArdiovascular disease’) [2]. Twenty-five years later, in late September 2003, the closing act of this global study, held at the World Health Organization Headquarters in Geneva, attended by some of its founding fathers, was the launch of an omnibus book, accounting for what MONICA had done in the interim. This MONICA Monograph and Multimedia Sourcebook [3] should appeal to everyone interested in cardiovascular diseases, in risk factors, in primary and secondary prevention and in public health and health policies. At its peak, in the decade from the middle 1980s to the mid-1990s MONICA encompassed 38 populations in 21 countries across four continents. MONICA requirements for cardiovascular disease, risk factor and medical-care monitoring were tedious and expensive, and placed participation beyond the reach of most developing countries: Africa and South America were not represented. But MONICA in the words of Dag Thelle ‘an outsider looking in’ in one of the prefaces to the Monograph ‘ignited vivid interest around the world, disseminating both the concepts and the disciplined practice of cardiovascular epidemiology’ [3]. As the book demonstrates, MONICA concentrated on basic disease, risk factor, and medical care measurements. It produced this elementary material to the highest possible quality standards, in the process making an unanswerable case for initiating local and national control and prevention policies in many countries, and challenging governments to improve the range and quality of routinely collected data [4–9]. These same data, through MONICA's careful standardization, were used collaboratively for sophisticated hypothesis testing [10–13], involving the development of new statistical techniques [14–16]. ‘Core’ MONICA population surveys of classic risk factors were often used to add on studies of ‘optional’ newer candidate factors, so that MONICA investigators figured in the study of both the new and the old. It is therefore no surprise that collaborative MONICA publications and those from individual centres appear in journals ranging from public health and health promotion, to clinical cardiology and stroke, and thence to prestige high-impact journals publishing biomedical discoveries. It is because MONICA publications are so scattered in time and place that the Monograph will be so valuable [3]. Richly illustrated in full colour, this book explains the background and history of the project, how it was organized and the rationale for all the procedures. Each population centre has a page in which the principal investigator describes how it contributed, what made it special, the local interests and publications. Abstracts of all the collaborative papers are reproduced and the final third of the book consists of 80 graphics of the MONICA collaborative results along with detailed explanatory notes. The Monograph describes how MONICA adopted the information technology revolution to complete its programme - the Monograph is no exception. Within it are two CD-ROMs, which make it a Multimedia Sourcebook. They contain the protocol and manuals for the study, the quality assessment reports on each subject area and the data books themselves, so that full MONICA findings are available to the reader and researcher. The graphics are made available again on the CD-ROM as downloadable slide presentations with a spoken commentary. Finally a 20% random subset of the MONICA database is reproduced for those wishing to carry out their own analyses. (The full database is currently accessible only to MONICA investigators and through the continuing MONICA Steering Committee). The book has been designed to attract a wide readership of anyone interested in heart disease, stroke, lifestyle and risk factors, public health policy, epidemiology and prevention, ranging from the general public to journalists, medical specialists, students and teachers. Generous sponsorship from a variety of sources has made it affordable as a potential student textbook. In the words of the Editor, Hugh Tunstall-Pedoe of the University of Dundee in Scotland, who was Rapporteur of the WHO MONICA Project and coordinated the 70 contributors: ‘See how, by sharing our objectives and standardizing our methods, we have been able to draw conclusions for the public good from the variety of experiences of our different populations. The Monograph illustrates the value of international collaboration in understanding and controlling chronic diseases and their causes, and in the dissemination of sound scientific methods. The success of the Monograph will be judged by how much it stimulates health workers and administrators in different countries to think like epidemiologists - on a world scale - and to collaborate in tackling other similar challenges to world health' [3].

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,029
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,096

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,002
Communication savante0,0110,005
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,010
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0290,016

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations164
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & RehabilitationMême sujetGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyTravaux en français237 207