Clinical Research Recent Temporal Trends and Geographic Distribution of Cardiac Procedures in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prior Canadian studies of cardiac procedure rates showed changes over time and regional variability, but more recent Canadian cardiac procedure rates are unknown. Methods: We performed a study using the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease registry to evaluate the temporal trends and geographic distribution of cardiac procedures in Alberta from April 1, 2003 through March 31, 2010. Rates were age- and sex-standardized by means of the 1996 Canadian census. Results: While the raw number of cardiac catheterizations in Alberta was nearly uniform through the study period, age- and sex-standardized cardiac catheterizations declined from a rate of 480 per 100,000 in 2003 to a rate of 430 per 100,000 in 2010. The percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) rates also declined, from a rate of 186 per 100,000 in 2003 to 170 per 100,000 in 2010. The rates for coronary artery bypass grafts declined from 84 per 100,000 in 2003 to 42 per 100,000 in 2010. There was geographic variability, with northern regions characterized by rates that were higher than the provincial average rates, and southern regions characterized by rates lower than the provincial average. Conclusion: During the study period, age- and sex-standardized rates of cardiac catheterization and PCI in Alberta declined, reversing previous trends of increasing PCI rates. The rates of coronary artery bypass RESUME
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".