Understanding Information About Mortality Among People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper reviews what is currently known about mortality among Canadians with intellectual and developmental disabilities and describes opportunities for ongoing monitoring. METHODS: In-hospital mortality among adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Ontario was examined using hospital data. Mortality was compared between age-, sex- and residence area-matched groups of Manitobans with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities using linked administrative data. A retrospective cohort study of mortality among individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in a region of Ontario focused on measuring excess mortality and risk factors. FINDINGS: There is evidence of excess mortality in persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Canada. Some of the excess is attributable to comorbidities that are more common in this population. Women may have a greater risk of death than men. Excess mortality occurs at all ages but is more pronounced in early life. DISCUSSION: High-quality ongoing monitoring of mortality among individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities is possible in Canada. Examination of sex differences should be a priority.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it