Modelling preventive effectiveness to estimate the equity tipping point: at what coverage can individual preventive interventions reduce socioeconomic disparities in diabetes risk?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Most individual preventive therapies potentially narrow or widen health disparities depending on the difference in community effectiveness across socioeconomic position (SEP). The equity tipping point (defined as the point at which health disparities become larger) can be calculated by varying components of community effectiveness such as baseline risk of disease, intervention coverage and/or intervention efficacy across SEP. METHODS: We used a simple modelling approach to estimate the community effectiveness of diabetes prevention across SEP in Canada under different scenarios of intervention coverage. RESULTS: Five-year baseline diabetes risk differed between the lowest and highest income groups by 1.76%. Assuming complete coverage across all income groups, the difference was reduced to 0.90% (144 000 cases prevented) with lifestyle interventions and 1.24% (88 100 cases prevented) with pharmacotherapy. The equity tipping point was estimated to be a coverage difference of 30% for preventive interventions (100% and 70% coverage among the highest and lowest income earners, respectively). CONCLUSION: Disparities in diabetes risk could be measurably reduced if existing interventions were equally adopted across SEP. However, disparities in coverage could lead to increased inequity in risk. Simple modelling approaches can be used to examine the community effectiveness of individual preventive interventions and their potential to reduce (or increase) disparities. The equity tipping point can be used as a critical threshold for disparities analyses.
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 | 0.012 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".