Multimorbidity disease clusters in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Caucasian populations in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patterns of multimorbidity, the co-occurrence of two or more chronic diseases, may not be constant across populations. Our study objectives were to compare prevalence estimates of multimorbidity in the Aboriginal population in Canada and a matched non-Aboriginal Caucasian population and identify the chronic diseases that cluster in these groups. METHODS: We used data from the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) to identify adult (≥ 18 years) respondents who self-identified as Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal Caucasian origin and reported having 2 or more of the 15 most prevalent chronic conditions measured in the CCHS. Aboriginal respondents who met these criteria were matched on sex and age to non-Aboriginal Caucasian respondents. Analyses were stratified by age (18-54 years and ≥ 55 years). Prevalence was estimated using survey weights. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify disease clusters. RESULTS: A total of 1642 Aboriginal respondents were matched to the same number of non-Aboriginal Caucasian respondents. Overall, 38.9% (95% CI: 36.5%-41.3%) of Aboriginal respondents had two or more chronic conditions compared to 30.7% (95% CI: 28.9%-32.6%) of non-Aboriginal respondents. Comparisons of LCA results revealed that three or four clusters provided the best fit to the data. There were similarities in the diseases that tended to co-occur amongst older groups in both populations, but differences existed between the populations amongst the younger groups. CONCLUSION: We found a small group of younger Aboriginal respondents who had complex co-occurring chronic diseases; these individuals may especially benefit from disease management programs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".