MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096550759 · doi:10.1186/1756-0500-5-400

The Saskatchewan rural health study: an application of a population health framework to understand respiratory health outcomes

2012· article· en· W2096550759 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Punam Pahwa, Chandima Karunanayake, Louise Hagel, Bonnie Janzen, William Pickett, Donna Rennie, Ambikaipakan Senthilselvan, Josh Lawson, Shelley Kirychuk, James A. Dosman

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Research Notes · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of AlbertaSaskatchewan HealthUniversity of SaskatchewanRoyal University Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaChronic bronchitisCohortEnvironmental healthRural healthCohort studyBronchitisPopulationRural areaDemographyGerontologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Respiratory disease can impose a significant burden on the health of rural populations. The Saskatchewan Rural Health Study (SRHS) is a new large prospective cohort study of ages 6 and over currently being conducted in farming and non-farming communities to evaluate potential health determinants associated with respiratory outcomes in rural populations. In this article, we describe the rationale and methodology for the adult component.The study is being conducted over 5 years (2009-15) in two phases, baseline and longitudinal. The baseline survey consists of two components, adults and children. The adult component consists of a questionnaire-based evaluation of individual and contextual factors of importance to respiratory health in two sub populations (a Farm Cohort and a Small Town Cohort) of rural families in Saskatchewan Rural Municipalities (RMs). Clinical studies of lung function and allergy tests are being conducted on selected sub-samples of the two cohorts based on the positive response to the last question on the baseline questionnaire: "Would you be willing to be contacted about having breathing and/or allergy tests at a nearby location?". We adopted existing population health theory to evaluate individual factors, contextual factors, and principal covariates on the outcomes of chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and obstructive sleep apnea. FINDINGS: Of the RMs selected to participate, 32 (89%) out of 36 RMs and 15 (94%) out of 16 small towns within the RMs agreed to participate. Using the mail out survey method developed by Dillman, we obtained completed questionnaires from 4264 households (8261 individuals). We obtained lung function measurements on 1609 adults, allergy skin test information on 1615 adults; both measurements were available on 1549 adults. We observed differences between farm and non-farm rural residents with respect to individual, contextual factors and covariates. DISCUSSION: There are differences between farm and non-farm rural residents with respect to individual and contextual factors and other variables of importance. The findings of the SRHS will improve knowledge of respiratory disease etiology, assist in the development and targeting of prevention programs, and in planning health services with farm and small town populations.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Research NotesSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207