MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127340357 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(15)00179-5

Regional contributions of six preventable risk factors to achieving the 25 × 25 non-communicable disease mortality reduction target: a modelling study

2015· article· en· W2127340357 on OpenAlexaff
Vasilis Kontis, Colin Mathers, Ruth Bonita, Gretchen A Stevens, Jürgen Rehm, Kevin D. Shield, Leanne M Riley, Vladimir Poznyak, Samer Jabbour, Renu Garg, Anselm Hennis, Heba Fouad, Robert Beaglehole, Majid Ezzati

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsEnvironmental healthMedicineNon-communicable diseaseRisk factorEpidemiologyObesityDiseaseDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Countries have agreed to reduce premature mortality from the four main non-communicable diseases (NCDs) by 25% from 2010 levels by 2025 (referred to as the 25 × 25 target). Countries also agreed on a set of global voluntary targets for selected NCD risk factors. Previous analyses have shown that achieving the risk factor targets can contribute substantially towards meeting the 25 × 25 mortality target at the global level. We estimated the contribution of achieving six of the globally agreed risk factor targets towards meeting the 25 × 25 mortality target by region. METHODS: We estimated the effect of achieving the targets for six risk factors (tobacco and alcohol use, salt intake, obesity, and raised blood pressure and glucose) on NCD mortality between 2010 and 2025. Our methods accounted for multicausality of NCDs and for the fact that, when risk factor exposure increases or decreases, the harmful or beneficial effects on NCDs accumulate gradually. We used data for risk factor and mortality trends from systematic analyses of available country data. Relative risks for the effects of individual and multiple risks, and for change in risk after decreases or increases in exposure, were from reanalyses and meta-analyses of epidemiological studies. FINDINGS: The probability of dying between the ages 30 years and 70 years from the four main NCDs in 2010 ranged from 19% in the region of the Americas to 29% in southeast Asia for men, and from 13% in Europe to 21% in southeast Asia for women. If current trends continue, the probability of dying prematurely from the four main NCDs is projected to increase in the African region but decrease in the other five regions. If the risk factor targets are achieved, the 25 × 25 target will be surpassed in Europe in both men and women, and will be achieved in women (and almost achieved in men) in the western Pacific; the regions of the Americas, the eastern Mediterranean, and southeast Asia will approach the target; and the rising trend in Africa will be reversed. In most regions, a more ambitious approach to tobacco control (50% reduction relative to 2010 instead of the agreed 30%) will contribute the most to reducing premature NCD mortality among men, followed by addressing raised blood pressure and the agreed tobacco target. For women, the highest contributing risk factor towards the premature NCD mortality target will be raised blood pressure in every region except Europe and the Americas, where the ambitious (but not agreed) tobacco reduction would have the largest benefit. INTERPRETATION: No WHO region will meet the 25 × 25 premature mortality target if current mortality trends continue. Achieving the agreed targets for the six risk factors will allow some regions to meet the 25 × 25 target and others to approach it. Meeting the 25 × 25 target in Africa needs other interventions, including those addressing infection-related cancers and cardiovascular disease. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.011
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations144
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207