MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2505361552 · doi:10.1111/jir.12314

Mortality in people with intellectual disabilities in England

2016· article· en· W2505361552 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disability Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicinePopulationPediatricsLife expectancyCause of deathDemographyMortality rateGerontologyDiseaseSurgeryEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: People with intellectual disabilities (IDs) die at younger ages than the general population, but nationally representative and internationally comparable mortality data about people with ID, quantifying the extent and pattern of the excess, have not previously been reported for England. METHOD: We used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database for April 2010 to March 2014 (CPRD GOLD September 2015). This source covered several hundred participating general practices comprising roughly 5% of the population of England in the period studied. General practitioner (GP) records identified people diagnosed by their GP as having ID. Linked national death certification data allowed us to derive corresponding mortality data for people with and without ID, overall and by cause. RESULTS: Mortality rates for people with ID were significantly higher than for those without. Their all-cause standardised mortality ratio was 3.18. Their life expectancy at birth was 19.7 years lower than for people without ID. Circulatory and respiratory diseases and neoplasms were the three most common causes of death for them. Cerebrovascular disease, thrombophlebitis and pulmonary embolism all had standardised mortality ratios greater than 3 in people with ID. This has not been described before. Other potentially avoidable causes included epilepsy (3.9% of deaths), aspiration pneumonitis (3.6%) and colorectal cancer (2.4%). Avoidable mortality analysis showed a higher proportion of deaths from causes classified as amenable to good medical care but a lower proportion from preventable causes compared with people without ID. International comparison to areas for which data have been published in sufficient detail for calculation of directly standardised rates suggest England may have higher death rates for people with ID than areas in Canada and Finland, and lower death rates than Ireland or the State of Massachusetts in the USA. CONCLUSIONS: National data about mortality in people with ID provides a basis for public health interventions. Linked data using GP records to identify people with ID could provide comprehensive population-based monitoring in England, unbiased by the circumstances of illnesses or death; to date information governance constraints have prevented this. However, GPs in England currently identify only around 0.5% of the population as having ID, suggesting that individuals with mild, non-syndromic ID are largely missed. Notably common causes of death suggest control of cardiovascular risk factors, epilepsy and dysphagia, management of thrombotic risks and colorectal screening are important areas for health promotion initiatives.

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.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.289 · 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