The aging Canadian population and hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction: projection to 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk of experiencing an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) increases with age and Canada's population is aging. The objective of this analysis was to examine trends in the AMI hospitalization rate in Canada between 2002 and 2009 and to estimate the potential increase in the number of AMI hospitalizations over the next decade. METHODS: Aggregated data on annual AMI hospitalizations were obtained from the Canadian Institute for Health Information for all provinces and territories, except Quebec, for 2002/03 and 2009/10. Using these data in a Poisson regression model to control for age, gender and year, the rate of AMI hospitalizations was extrapolated between 2010 and 2020. The extrapolated rate and Statistics Canada population projections were used to estimate the number of AMI hospitalizations in 2020. RESULTS: The rates of AMI hospitalizations by gender and age group showed a decrease between 2002 and 2009 in patients aged ≥ 65 years and relatively stable rates in those aged < 64 years in both males and females. However, the total number of AMI hospitalizations in Canada (excluding Quebec) is projected to increase by 4667 from 51847 in 2009 to 56514 in 2020, a 9.0% increase. Inflating this number to account for the unavailable Quebec data results in an increase of approximately 6200 for the whole of Canada. This would amount to an additional cost of between $46 and $54 million and sensitivity analyses indicate that it could be between $36 and $65 million. CONCLUSIONS: Despite projected decreasing or stable rates of AMI hospitalization, the number of hospitalizations is expected to increase substantially as a result of the aging of the Canadian population. The cost of these hospitalizations will be substantial. An increase of this extent in the number of AMI hospitalizations and the ensuing costs would significantly impact the already over-stretched Canadian healthcare system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".