MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1580928722

Impact of chronic conditions.

2003· article· en· W1580928722 on OpenAlexaffabout
Susan Schultz, Jacek A. Kopec

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)RheumatismPopulationDemographyChronic conditionGerontologyMultivariate statisticsChronic diseaseCross-sectional studyEnvironmental healthDiseaseStatisticsInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This article compares the impact of various self-reported chronic conditions on health-related quality of life, as measured by the Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI3), for the population aged 12 or older. DATA SOURCE: The data are from the cross-sectional household component of the Health file of the 1996/97 National Population Health Survey. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: The effect of 21 chronic conditions was assessed for the full sample (73,402) and in subgroups by age and sex. All analyses were weighted to represent the Canadian population at the time of the survey. The effect of each chronic condition on the HUI3 was estimated using multivariate linear regression, adjusting for age, sex and co-morbidity. MAIN RESULTS: The average impact of different chronic conditions on health status varies substantially. At younger ages, urinary incontinence and arthritis/rheumatism have the greatest effect on health-related quality of life, while at older ages, Alzheimer's disease and the effects of stroke have a major impact. Assessments of the impact of any specific condition should account for the presence of other conditions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations152
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207