Diagnostic cardiac catheterization and revascularization rates for coronary heart disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of regional variation across North America, there have been no comprehensive studies of cardiac procedure rates for coronary heart disease in Canada. OBJECTIVES: To use available administrative data and a survey of catheterization facilities to examine regional and demographic variations in cardiovascular procedure rates. METHODS: A survey of all cardiac catheterization facilities in Canada was conducted, and the procedure counts from these facilities were used to determine provincial catheterization rates from 1997/1998 to 2001/2002. Procedure counts for 1997/1998 to 1999/2000 for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were provided by the Canadian Institute for Health Information and used to calculate revascularization procedure rates. Population projections provided by Statistics Canada were used as denominators for calculating the rates, and direct standardization was used to obtain age- and sex-adjusted rates. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The crude rate of cardiac catheterization in Canada increased from 359.9 to 471.5 per 100,000 population across the five years studied. There was considerable variation in revascularization procedure rates across health regions and provinces. Between 1997/1998 and 1999/2000, there was little increase in the rate of CABGs performed in Canada but a marked increase in the rate of PCIs. For both CABG and PCI, rates were higher for men than women, and highest in the 65- to 74-year-old age category. This study provides a valuable 'snapshot' of cardiac procedure use rates but indicates a clear need for more comprehensive collection of cardiac care data in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".