MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047157658 · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2014-110068

Effects of screening and lifestyle counselling on incidence of ischaemic heart disease in general population are limited

2014· letter· en· W2047157658 on OpenAlexaff
Scott A. Lear

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIschaemic heart diseaseIncidence (geometry)PopulationDiseaseBurden of diseasePediatricsDemographyGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on : Jorgensen T, Jacobsen RK, Toft U, et al. Effect of screening and lifestyle counselling on incidence of ischaemic heart disease in general population: Inter99 randomised trial. BMJ 2014;348:g3617.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] While mortality rates from cardiovascular diseases—particularly ischaemic heart disease (IHD)—have been declining in Western countries, IHD still contributes a significant burden to individuals, healthcare systems and society.1 Therefore, IHD prevention efforts could have major impact on societal health. Given the widespread prevalence of IHD and IHD risk factors, population-focused public health strategies are needed, especially as the value of individual, high-risk programmes will be limited to the individuals directly targeted. The Inter99 randomised trial was designed to test a screening and lifestyle counselling programme to reduce individual-level IHD risk. After 5 years, the Inter99 intervention resulted in significant risk reduction. Jorgensen and colleagues report on a 10-year follow-up of the study to … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.g3617%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F24912589%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=348/jun09_2/g3617&atom=%2Febmed%2F20%2F1%2F8.atom

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207