MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034484752 · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-277

Male and Female Adult Population Health Status in China: A Cross-Sectional National Survey

2008· article· en· W2034484752 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsMedicineDemographyBiostatisticsPublic healthCross-sectional studyQuality of life (healthcare)ChinaPopulationEpidemiologyRural areaGerontologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With rapid economic growth and globalization, lifestyle in China has been changing dramatically. This study aimed to describe the male and female adult Chinese population health status. METHODS: The Chinese Third National Health Services Survey was conducted in 2003 to collect information about health status and quality of life from randomly selected residents. Of the 193,689 respondents to the survey (response rate 77.8%), 139,831 (69,748 male and 70,083 female) respondents who were 18 years of age or older were analyzed. RESULTS: Among the respondents, fewer males than females rated their overall wellbeing as being poor or very poor (4.8% versus 6.2%), reported illness in the last 2 weeks (14.1% versus 17.4%), presence of physician diagnosed chronic disease (15.0% versus 17.7%) and at least one functional problem in seven items of the quality of life (26.9% versus 32.8%). More males than females were currently smoking (52.4% versus 3.4%) and drank alcohol more than three times per week (16.5% versus 1.1%). Physically inactive rate was similar between males and females (85.8% versus 87.0%). Fewer rural respondents reported chronic disease than urban respondents (13.0% versus 19.9% for males and 15.5% versus 22.8% for females). In all seven items of the quality of life measured, rural respondents reported less problems than urban respondents (26.2% versus 28.7% for males and 32.0% versus 34.7% for females). CONCLUSION: Males had better health status than females in terms of self-perceived wellbeing, presence of illness, chronic disease, and quality of life. However, smoking and frequent alcohol drinking was more prevalent among males than that among females. In contrast with the social-economic gradient in health commonly found in the literature, the wealthier urban population in China was not found to be healthier than the rural population in terms of physician diagnosed chronic disease.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.202 · 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