MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006180077 · doi:10.1097/jom.0b013e3181dce655

The Relationship Between Health Risks and Health and Productivity Costs Among Employees at Pepsi Bottling Group

2010· article· en· W2006180077 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Mosher Henke, Ginger Smith Carls, Meghan E. Short, Xiaofei Pei, Shaohung Wang, Susan Moley, Mark D. Sullivan, Ron Z. Goetzel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsThomson Reuters (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthMedicinePer capitaBottling lineProductivityRisk assessmentAbsenteeismHealth careEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate relationships between modifiable health risks and costs and measure potential cost savings from risk reduction programs. METHODS: Health risk information from active Pepsi Bottling Group employees who completed health risk assessments between 2004 and 2006 (N = 11,217) were linked to medical care, workers' compensation, and short-term disability cost data. Ten health risks were examined. Multivariate analyses were performed to estimate costs associated with having high risk, holding demographics, and other risks constant. Potential savings from risk reduction were estimated. RESULTS: High risk for weight, blood pressure, glucose, and cholesterol had the greatest impact on total costs. A one-percentage point annual reduction in the health risks assessed would yield annual per capita savings of $83.02 to $103.39. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted programs that address modifiable health risks are expected to produce substantial cost reductions in multiple benefit categories.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations72
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207