Chronic bronchitis in Aboriginal people—prevalence and associated factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Knowledge about chronic bronchitis (CB) among Aboriginal people in Canada is limited. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of CB and its associated factors among Aboriginal people aged 15 years plus. METHODS: Logistic regression analysis was used on data from the cross-sectional 2006 Aboriginal Peoples Survey to determine risk factors associated with CB. RESULTS: CB prevalence was 6.6% among First Nations, 6.2% among Métis and 2.4% among Inuit. Prevalence was higher among females than males (7.2% versus 5.0%). Individuals with CB were more likely to be older, living at a lower income, with a lower educational attainment and residing in rural areas. Smoking status and body mass index were also significantly associated with CB, but their effect differed by sex. Obesity was particularly significantly associated with CB among females compared with males, and current smoking and non-smoking status was significantly associated with CB among females but not males. CONCLUSION: These findings identify factors associated with CB among Aboriginal people. As such, they may represent potentially preventable risk factors that can inform health promotion and disease prevention practices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".