Cardiovascular Disease Rates, Outcomes, and Quality of Care in Ontario Métis: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The burden of cardiovascular disease in the Métis, Canada's fastest growing Aboriginal group, is not well studied. We determined rates of five cardiovascular diseases and associated outcomes in Ontario Métis, compared to the general Ontario population. METHODS: Métis persons were identified using the Métis Nation of Ontario Citizenship Registry. Métis citizens aged 20-105 were linked to Ontario health databases for the period of April 2006 to March 2011. Age- and sex-standardized prevalence and incidence of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), congestive heart failure (CHF), cerebrovascular disease (stroke), atrial fibrillation, and hypertension were compared between the Métis and the general population. Secondary outcome measures included one-year hospitalizations and mortality following the incident cardiovascular diagnosis, as well as quality-of-care measures. RESULTS: There were 12,550 eligible Métis persons and 10,144,002 in the general population. The adjusted prevalence of each disease was higher (p<0.05) among the Métis compared to the general population: ACS 5.3% vs. 3.0%; CHF 5.1% vs. 3.9%; stroke 1.4% vs. 1.1%; atrial fibrillation 2.1% vs. 1.4%; hypertension 34.9% vs. 29.8%. Incident ACS, stroke, and atrial fibrillation were also higher (p<0.05) among the Métis: ACS 2.4% vs. 1.5%; stroke 0.8% vs. 0.6%; atrial fibrillation 0.6% vs. 0.3%. One-year all-cause and cardiovascular-related mortality were not significantly different. Hospitalizations were higher for Métis persons with CHF (OR 1.93; 95% CI 1.34-2.78) and hypertension (OR 2.27; 95% CI 1.88-2.74). Métis with CHF made more emergency department (ED) visits in the year after diagnosis compared to non-Métis with CHF, while Métis aged ≥65 with ACS were more likely to be on beta-blockers following diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of cardiovascular disease was markedly higher in the Métis compared to the general population: prevalence rates for five cardiovascular conditions were 25% to 77% higher. Métis persons with CHF had more frequent hospitalizations and ED visits following their diagnosis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".