MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133203464 · doi:10.1300/j074v14n01_05

Gender Differences in Disability-Free Life Expectancy for Selected Risk Factors and Chronic Conditions in Canada

2002· article· en· W2133203464 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alain Bélanger, Laurent Martel, Jean‐Marie Berthelot, Russell Wilkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Women & Aging · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife expectancyMedicineGerontologyDemographyBody mass indexDiabetes mellitusPopulationSocioeconomic statusEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article shows how mortality and morbidity patterns differ for women and men 45 years of age and older. The impact on disability-free life expectancy was calculated for selected risk factors and chronic conditions: low income, low education, abnormal body mass index, lack of physical activity, smoking, cancer, diabetes, and arthritis. For each factor, the expected number of years free of disability was calculated for men and women using multi-state life tables. In terms of disability-free life expectancy, the greatest impacts on affected women were for diabetes (14.1 years), arthritis (8.8 years), and physical inactivity (6.0 years), while for affected men, the greatest impacts were for diabetes (10.5 years), smoking (6.9 years), arthritis (6.5 years), and cancer (6.4 years). The implications of these results are discussed from the perspective of developing programs designed to improve population health status.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations51
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Women & AgingSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207