MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060359202 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.20.6.233

Comparing The National Economic Burden Of Five Chronic Conditions

2001· article· en· W2060359202 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Chronic diseaseAsthmaEnvironmental healthMultiple Chronic ConditionsChronic conditionBurden of diseaseMoodGerontologyDiseasePsychiatryFamily medicinePopulationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a nationally representative sample of 23,230 U.S. residents, we examine patterns of economic burden across five chronic conditions: mood disorders, diabetes, heart disease, asthma, and hypertension. Almost half of U.S. health care costs in 1996 were borne by persons with one or more of these five conditions; of that spending amount, only about one-quarter was spent on treating the conditions themselves and the remainder on coexistent illnesses. Each condition demonstrated substantial economic burden but also unique characteristics and patterns of service use driving those costs. The findings highlight the differing challenges involved in understanding needs and improving care across particular chronic conditions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.238 · 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