MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984846764 · doi:10.1136/jech.2005.041350

Explaining the social gradient in coronary heart disease: comparing relative and absolute risk approaches

2006· article· en· W1984846764 on OpenAlexaff
John P. Lynch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Epidemiology & Community Health · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsMedicineAbsolute risk reductionRelative riskPopulationRisk factorDemographyInequalitySocial inequalityCoronary heart diseaseGerontologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY OBJECTIVES: There are contradictory perspectives on the importance of conventional coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors in explaining population levels and social gradients in CHD. This study examined the contribution of conventional CHD risk factors (smoking, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and diabetes) to explaining population levels and to absolute and relative social inequalities in CHD. This was investigated in an entire population and by creating a low risk sub-population with no smoking, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, and hypertension to simulate what would happen to relative and social inequalities in CHD if conventional risk factors were removed. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Population based study of 2682 eastern Finnish men aged 42, 48, 54, 60 at baseline with 10.5 years average follow up of fatal (ICD9 codes 410-414) and non-fatal (MONICA criteria) CHD events. MAIN RESULTS: In the whole population, 94.6% of events occurred among men exposed to at least one conventional risk factor, with a PAR of 68%. Adjustment for conventional risk factors reduced relative social inequality by 24%. However, in a low risk population free from conventional risk factors, absolute social inequality reduced by 72%. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional risk factors explain the majority of absolute social inequality in CHD because conventional risk factors explain the vast majority of CHD cases in the population. However, the role of conventional risk factors in explaining relative social inequality was modest. This apparent paradox may arise in populations where inequalities in conventional risk factors between social groups are low, relative to the high levels of conventional risk factors within every social group. If the concern is to reduce the overall population health burden of CHD and the disproportionate population health burden associated with the social inequalities in CHD, then reducing conventional risk factors will do the job.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations176
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Epidemiology & Community HealthSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207