MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1925532537 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2015.302697

Trends in Educational Inequalities in Drug Poisoning Mortality: United States, 1994–2010

2015· article· en· W1925532537 on OpenAlexafffund
Robin Richardson, Thomas Charters, Nicholas B. King, Sam Harper

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPoisoning and overdose treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDemographyEducational attainmentMedicineInequalityPopulationRace (biology)Injury preventionMortality ratePoison controlGerontologyEnvironmental healthSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: We estimated trends in drug poisoning death rates by educational attainment and investigated educational inequalities in drug poisoning mortality by race, gender, and region. METHODS: We linked drug poisoning death counts from the National Vital Statistics System to population denominators from the Current Population Survey to estimate drug poisoning rates by gender, race, region, and educational attainment (less than high school degree, high school degree, some college, college degree) from 1994 to 2010. RESULTS: There were 372,485 drug poisoning deaths. Education-related inequalities increased during the study among all demographic groups and varied by region. Absolute increases in educational inequalities were higher among Whites than Blacks and men than women. The age-adjusted rate difference between White men with less than a high school degree increased from 8.7 per 100,000 in 1994 to 27.4 in 2010 (change = 18.7). Among Black men, the corresponding increases were 11.7 and 18.3, respectively (change = 6.6). CONCLUSIONS: We found strong educational patterning in drug poisoning rates, chiefly by region and race. Rates are highest and increasing the fastest among groups with less education.

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)0.002
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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicPoisoning and overdose treatmentsFrench-language works237,207