MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W178562785 · doi:10.24095/hpcdp.32.1.03

Piloting the CANRISK tool in Vancouver Coastal Health

2011· article· en· W178562785 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
David Papineau, Maylene Fong

Bibliographic record

VenueChronic diseases and injuries in Canada · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrediabetesMedicineEthnic groupImpaired glucose toleranceDiabetes mellitusFamily medicinePsychological interventionImpaired fasting glucoseType 2 diabetesType 2 Diabetes MellitusGerontologyNursingEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Vancouver Coastal Health Authority's Healthy Living Program implemented this pilot study to test and validate the Canadian Diabetes Risk Assessment Questionnaire (CANRISK) developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada as a screening tool for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and prediabetes. Key objectives were to test the feasibility and acceptability of screening urban ethnic groups using the CANRISK, increase awareness of risk factors for DM and preDM and develop resources for lifestyle change. METHODS: The study recruited participants through community groups and churches, intraorganizational emails, primary care clinics and word of mouth. They completed the CANRISK and an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) either individually or as part of a group. Groups received a brief diabetes prevention information session. Documents to support lifestyle change were distributed to all participants. RESULTS: Participants (n = 556) were recruited among East Asian, Caucasian, South Asian and Latin American ethnic groups. Of these, 17% had OGTT results in the preDM range and 3% in the DM range. Over 90% of participants reported that the CANRISK wording was clear and that they had received useful information about lowering their diabetes risk. CONCLUSION: The benefit of using an OGTT was in identifying 11% of the sample of participants who had impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and did not show abnormal fasting plasma glucose (FPG) results. All participants with abnormal laboratory results were provided with follow-up educational interventions in their own language.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChronic diseases and injuries in CanadaSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207