MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1777273729 · doi:10.1186/s12963-015-0057-x

The Population Health Model (POHEM): an overview of rationale, methods and applications

2015· article· en· W1777273729 on OpenAlexaffabout
Deirdre Hennessy, W. Michael Flanagan, Peter Tanuseputro, Carol Bennett, Meltem Tuna, Jacek A. Kopec, Michael Wolfson, Douglas G. Manuel

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulation Health Metrics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsArthritis Research Centre of CanadaInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of OttawaBruyèreStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHealth services researchPublic healthPopulation healthEpidemiologyHealth economicsPopulationEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The POpulation HEalth Model (POHEM) is a health microsimulation model that was developed at Statistics Canada in the early 1990s. POHEM draws together rich multivariate data from a wide range of sources to simulate the lifecycle of the Canadian population, specifically focusing on aspects of health. The model dynamically simulates individuals' disease states, risk factors, and health determinants, in order to describe and project health outcomes, including disease incidence, prevalence, life expectancy, health-adjusted life expectancy, quality of life, and healthcare costs. Additionally, POHEM was conceptualized and built with the ability to assess the impact of policy and program interventions, not limited to those taking place in the healthcare system, on the health status of Canadians. Internationally, POHEM and other microsimulation models have been used to inform clinical guidelines and health policies in relation to complex health and health system problems. This paper provides a high-level overview of the rationale, methodology, and applications of POHEM. Applications of POHEM to cardiovascular disease, physical activity, cancer, osteoarthritis, and neurological diseases are highlighted.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.462
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.027 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations58
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePopulation Health MetricsSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207