MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988142324 · doi:10.1586/14737167.3.6.691

Impact of socioeconomic status on cardiovascular outcomes in Canada

2003· article· en· W1988142324 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David A. Alter, Shana Brandes, Jane Irvine, Karey Iron

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusMedicineEnvironmental healthGerontologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Socioeconomic status is an important predictor of cardiovascular health and outcomes both in Canada and worldwide. Social epidemiologists have struggled to identify the causal pathways that link poverty with death. While some have hypothesized that socioeconomic-outcome disparities are merely an epiphenomenon of analytic pitfalls, others perceive that wealth-health gradients are attributable to variations in patient biology, disparities in care or both. In this review, the background literature surrounding socioeconomic-outcome gradients in cardiovascular disease are briefly summarized. The Socioeconomic and Acute Myocardial Infarction study, has been designed to further understand the intermediary pathways which link socioeconomic status to outcomes following acute myocardial infarction.

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)0.000
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.477 · 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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes ResearchSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207