MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2464284513 · doi:10.1016/j.gheart.2016.03.029

OC06_10 Applicability of a Non-Laboratory- and a Laboratory Based Cardiovascular Disease Risk Score Across Seven Regions of the World

2016· article· en· W2464284513 on OpenAlexaff
Philip Joseph, Salim Yusuf, S.F. Lee, Quazi Ibrahim, Koon Teo, Sumathy Rangarajan, Sonia S. Anand

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Heart · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionMedical prescriptionRandomized controlled trialRandomizationEnvironmental healthIntervention (counseling)Cluster randomised controlled trialFamily medicineSurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in low-income countries including India. There is a need for effective, low-cost methods to prevent CVDs in rural India. One strategy is to identify and implement interventions at high-risk individuals using community health workers (CHWs). There is a paucity of CHW-based CVD intervention trials from low-income countries.We designed a multicenter, household-level, cluster-randomized trial with 1:1 allocation to intervention and control arms. The CHWs undertook a door-to-door survey and screened 5,699 households in 28 villages from 3 rural regions in India to identify at-risk households. The households were defined as those with ≥1 individual aged ≥35 years and at moderate or high risk for CVD based on the non–laboratory-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey score. All at-risk individuals were invited to attend a physician-led village clinic that provided a CVD risk reduction prescription and education about target risk factor levels for CVD control. All households in which at least 1 member at moderate to high risk for CVD had received a risk reduction prescription were eligible for randomization. Households randomized to the CHW-based intervention will receive 1 household visit by a CHW every 2 months, for 12 months. During these visits, CHWs will measure blood pressure, ascertain and reinforce adherence to prescribed therapies, and modify therapy to meet targets. Households randomized to the control arm do not receive CHW visits. At 12 months after randomization, we will evaluate 2 primary outcomes of systolic blood pressure and adherence to antihypertensive drugs and secondary outcomes of INTERHEART risk score, body mass index, and waist-to-hip ratios. At 18 to 24 months after randomization and 6 to 12 months after the last intervention, we will record these outcomes to evaluate sustainability of intervention.Community health workers screened a total of 5,033 households that included 9,248 individuals and identified 2,571 households with 3,784 at-risk individuals. We randomized 2,438 households (1,219 to intervention and 1,219 to control groups).Our large trial of CHWs in rural India will provide important information regarding a promising approach to primary prevention of CVDs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal HeartSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207