Estimating chronic disease rates in Canada: whichpopulation-wide denominator to use?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic disease rates are produced from the Public Health Agency of Canada's Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System (CCDSS) using administrative health data from provincial/territorial health ministries. Denominators for these rates are based on estimates of populations derived from health insurance files. However, these data may not be accessible to all researchers. Another source for population size estimates is the Statistics Canada census. The purpose of our study was to calculate the major differences between the CCDSS and Statistics Canada's population denominators and to identify the sources or reasons for the potential differences between these data sources. METHODS: We compared the 2009 denominators from the CCDSS and Statistics Canada. The CCDSS denominator was adjusted for the growth components (births, deaths, emigration and immigration) from Statistics Canada's census data. RESULTS: The unadjusted CCDSS denominator was 34 429 804, 3.2% higher than Statistics Canada's estimate of population in 2009. After the CCDSS denominator was adjusted for the growth components, the difference between the two estimates was reduced to 431 323 people, a difference of 1.3%. The CCDSS overestimates the population relative to Statistics Canada overall. The largest difference between the two estimates was from the migrant growth component, while the smallest was from the emigrant component. CONCLUSION: By using data descriptions by data source, researchers can make decisions about which population to use in their calculations of disease frequency.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it