Disproportion of economic impact, research achievements and research support in digestive diseases in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the economic impact, research output and research support of digestive diseases, and to compare them to those of other common disease entities, specifically mental, cardiovascular, respiratory, and central nervous system diseases. METHODS: Economic burden was assessed with the use of (a) published Canadian government data of direct cost from 1963 to 1993, (b) data from the Canadian Institute of Health Information and (c) recent Canadian economic studies. Research achievements were assessed on the basis of (a) research training in Canadian units, (b) individual achievements by Canadian investigators and (c) contribution to meetings and reception of awards. Research support was assessed by reviewing (a) Canadian government publications, (b) the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges, (c) the Medical Research Council (MRC) of Canada, (d) charitable organizations and (e) the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG). RESULTS: Digestive diseases are responsible for 15% of the total direct economic burden of Canadian health costs, and this figure exceeds those for mental, cardiovascular, respiratory and central nervous system diseases. Hospital discharges for digestive diseases contribute 12% of all hospitalizations and 20% of all neoplasias. Digestive diseases cause short-term loss of productivity, costing $1.14 billion/yr and exceeding the costs of mental, cardiovascular, respiratory and central nervous system diseases. Eighty-one percent of Research Fellows trained in Canadian units entered academic positions, and 63% obtained operating grants. Canadian investigators made important contributions in all areas of digestive science and received major international awards. Government support for digestive diseases was less than that for cardiovascular and neurologic research. In contrast to the highest economic burden, university staffing and residents were fewer for digestive than for mental, cardiovascular, respiratory and neurologic diseases. The number of MRC grants decreased, mainly because of organizational problems. Most charitable organizations support research specifically oriented to the disease of their interest. The CAG was the major supporter of non-specified research. CONCLUSIONS: Digestive diseases are responsible for a major economic burden. Scientists in this field have established international recognition, but research support lags behind the need to correct the economic burden and to provide future generations of scientists in the digestive sciences. There is need for government to readdress this shortcoming and to review its method of support.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".