MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968471518 · doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcu083

Trends in death attributed to myocardial infarction, heart failure and pulmonary embolism in Europe and Canada over the last decade

2014· article· en· W1968471518 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sai͏̈d Laribi, A. Aouba, Matthieu Resche‐Rigon, Helle Krogh Johansen, Madsen Eb, W. Frank Peacock, J. Masip, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Alain Cohen‐Solal, Éric Jougla, Patrick Plaisance, Alexandre Mebazaa

Bibliographic record

VenueQJM · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocialstyrelsen
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionPulmonary embolismCause of deathCardiologyInternal medicineHeart failureDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, cardiovascular diseases and cancer account for ∼40% of deaths. Certain reports have shown a progressive decrease in mortality. Our main objective was to assess mortality trends related to myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF) and pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: MI, HF and PE were studied as cause of death based on the analysis of death certificates in Canada (C), England and Wales (E), France (F) and Sweden (S). We also used a multiple cause approach. Age-standardized death rates (SDR) were calculated. RESULTS: The SDR for MI, HF or PE as the underlying cause of death, all decreased during the last decade. The decrease in SDR secondary to MI exceeded that for HF or PE. Concerning multiple cause of death, a greater decrease was also found for MI, compared with HF or PE. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the beneficial trends in SDR with MI, HF or PE both as underlying or multiple causes in the studied countries. For HF and PE, multiple cause approach seems more accurate to describe the burden of these two pathologies. Our study also suggests that more efforts should be dedicated to HF and PE in order to achieve similar trends than in MI.

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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQJMSame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207