Increased coronary heart disease and stroke hospitalisations from ambient temperatures in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess the associations between ambient temperatures and hospitalisations for coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke. Methods Our study comprised all residents living in Ontario, Canada, 1996–2013. For each of 14 health regions, we fitted a distributed lag non-linear model to estimate the cold and heat effects on hospitalisations from CHD, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke and ischaemic stroke, respectively. These effects were pooled using a multivariate meta-analysis. We computed attributable hospitalisations for cold and heat, defined as temperatures above and below the optimum temperature (corresponding to the temperature of minimum morbidity) and for moderate and extreme temperatures, defined using cut-offs at the 2.5th and 97.5th temperature percentiles. Results Between 1996 and 2013, we identified 1.4 million hospitalisations from CHD and 355 837 from stroke across Ontario. On cold days with temperature corresponding to the 1st percentile of temperature distribution, we found a 9% increase in daily hospitalisations for CHD (95% CI 1% to 16%), 29% increase for AMI (95% CI 15% to 45%) and 11% increase for stroke (95% CI 1% to 22%) relative to days with an optimal temperature. High temperatures (the 99th percentile) also increased CHD hospitalisations by 6% (95% CI 1% to 11%) relative to the optimal temperature. These estimates translate into 2.49% of CHD hospitalisations attributable to cold and 1.20% from heat. Additionally, 1.71% of stroke hospitalisations were attributable to cold. Importantly, moderate temperatures, rather than extreme temperatures, yielded the most of the cardiovascular burdens from temperatures. Conclusions Ambient temperatures, especially in moderate ranges, may be an important risk factor for cardiovascular-related hospitalisations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".