Health-adjusted life expectancy at the local level in ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health expectancy measures are becoming a common method of combining information on mortality and health-related quality of life into one summary population health measure. However, health expectancy measures are infrequently measured at the local level, despite a shift toward health service planning to that level. Using a modified Sullivan method, we calculated health-adjusted life expectancy (HALE) for the 42 public health units in Ontario using life tables that were derived from mortality and population data for 1988-1992 and the Health Utilities Index from the 1990 Ontario Health Survey. There were large variations among health units in HALE at age 15 for both men (range: 51.3-58.2 years) and women (range: 56.6-62.9 years). Generally, rural and northern areas had the lowest HALE. Local differences in male HALE were greater than for life expectancy (7.1 versus 6.0 years). Despite a relatively large health survey (45,583 respondents, range: 729-1,746 per health unit), few HALE differences deviated significantly from the Ontario mean, raising concerns about the feasibility of estimating local health expectancy measures with adequate precision. Nevertheless, the wider local differences and different geographic distribution of local HALE compared with mortality measures, along with the additional benefit of being able to model the complex interaction of mortality and morbidity, suggest that HALE may be a useful population health measure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".