MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125681013 · doi:10.1017/s1748499500000452

A Model for Ischaemic Heart Disease and Stroke I: The Model

2008· article· en· W2125681013 on OpenAlexaff
Tushar Chatterjee, Angus S. Macdonald, Howard R. Waters

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Actuarial Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsActua
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsFramingham Heart StudyStroke (engine)ObesityFramingham Risk ScoreConstruct (python library)DiseaseMedicineIschaemic heart diseaseDiabetes mellitusRisk factorMarkov modelMarkov chainEconometricsCardiologyComputer scienceInternal medicineStatisticsMathematicsEngineeringEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We construct a stochastic model of an individual's lifetime that includes diagnosis with ischaemic heart disease and stroke and also the development of the major risk factors for these conditions: hypercholesterolaemia, hypertension, diabetes and obesity. Smoking, another major risk factor, is treated deterministically. Mathematically, the model is a continuous time, finite state space Markov process, with the individual's age playing the rôle of time. The model is parameterised using data from the Framingham Heart Study, with parameter values adjusted so that the model is appropriate for UK conditions in the early 21st century. The model has been designed so that it can be used to quantify the effects of: (i) trends, in particular increasing prevalence of obesity. (ii) changes in behaviour, in particular smoking patterns, and (iii) treatments, in particular statins for hypercholesterolaemia. These applications are covered in two accompanying papers.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.005

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Actuarial ScienceSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207