MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044417549 · doi:10.1056/nejm200107123450205

Neighborhood of Residence and Incidence of Coronary Heart Disease

2001· article· en· W2044417549 on OpenAlexaff
Ana V. Diez Roux, Sharon Stein Merkin, Donna K. Arnett, Lloyd E. Chambless, Mark W. Massing, F. Javier Nieto, Paul D. Sorlie, Moysés Szklo, Herman A. Tyroler, Robert L. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusResidenceDemographyDisadvantagedMedicineConfidence intervalHazard ratioGerontologyPersonal incomeSocial deprivationPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Where a person lives is not usually thought of as an independent predictor of his or her health, although physical and social features of places of residence may affect health and health-related behavior. METHODS: Using data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, we examined the relation between characteristics of neighborhoods and the incidence of coronary heart disease. Participants were 45 to 64 years of age at base line and were sampled from four study sites in the United States: Forsyth County, North Carolina; Jackson, Mississippi; the northwestern suburbs of Minneapolis; and Washington County, Maryland. As proxies for neighborhoods, we used block groups containing an average of 1000 people, as defined by the U.S. Census. We constructed a summary score for the socioeconomic environment of each neighborhood that included information about wealth and income, education, and occupation. RESULTS: During a median of 9.1 years of follow-up, 615 coronary events occurred in 13,009 participants. Residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods (those with lower summary scores) had a higher risk of disease than residents of advantaged neighborhoods, even after we controlled for personal income, education, and occupation. Hazard ratios for coronary events in the most disadvantaged group of neighborhoods as compared with the most advantaged group--adjusted for age, study site, and personal socioeconomic indicators--were 1.7 among whites (95 percent confidence interval, 1.3 to 2.3) and 1.4 among blacks (95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 2.0). Neighborhood and personal socioeconomic indicators contributed independently to the risk of disease. Hazard ratios for coronary heart disease among low-income persons living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods, as compared with high-income persons in the most advantaged neighborhoods were 3.1 among whites (95 percent confidence interval, 2.1 to 4.8) and 2.5 among blacks (95 percent confidence interval, 1.4 to 4.5). These associations remained unchanged after adjustment for established risk factors for coronary heart disease. CONCLUSIONS: Even after controlling for personal income, education, and occupation, we found that living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with an increased incidence of coronary heart 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.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.345
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

Citations1,807
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207