MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772383933

Abstract 20525: The Cumulative Burden of Potentially Modifiable Cardiac Risk Factors is Modestly Associated With a Perceived Need to Improve Physical Health: A Population-Based Study of Canadian Adults

2016· article· en· W2772383933 on OpenAlexaffabout
F. Daniel Ramirez, Yue Chen, Pietro Di Santo, Trevor Simard, Pouya Motazedian, Benjamin Hibbert

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePopulationConfoundingEnvironmental healthPoisson regressionGerontologyObesityPsychosocialCommunity healthDemographyPopulation healthNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyPublic healthInternal medicinePsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: An individual’s perceived need to improve physical health (PNIPH) is an essential precursor to adopting healthy behaviors. Nine potentially modifiable risk factors (PMRFs) for myocardial infarction collectively account for ≥90% of the population attributable risk: smoking, hypertension, diabetes, abdominal obesity, psychosocial factors, low fruit and vegetable consumption, lack of or excessive alcohol intake, physical inactivity, and raised apolipoprotein B/A1 ratio. Though widely recognized, their impact on individuals’ health perceptions is unclear. Methods: Residents from 6 provinces were administered a module on changes to improve health as part of the 2011-2012 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). The CCHS uses a complex survey design with stratification, multiple stages of selection, and unequal probability sampling. Sampling weighting was therefore taken into account to derive estimates that are representative of the covered population and an approximate method for incorporating the survey design effect was used. Modified Poisson regression was used to calculate prevalence ratios (PRs) of individual and collective PMRFs for PNIPH. Relevant data were available for 8 of the 9 PMRFs sought. Results: In total, 45,443 adult respondents were included, representing 11,006,123 Canadians and corresponding to 96.8% of the adult population of the sampled provinces. The sum of PMRFs was positively associated with PNIPH (adjusted PR 1.08, 95% CI 1.07-1.09 for each additional PMRF) with 82.3% of individuals with ≥5 PMRFs reporting this perception. After adjusting for potential confounders, the PMRFs most strongly associated with PNIPH were obesity (PR 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.21), smoking (PR 1.15, 95% CI 1.11-1.19), and physical inactivity (PR 1.13, 95% CI 1.10-1.16). Diabetes and a lack of or excessive alcohol intake were not associated with PNIPH. Conclusions: PMRFs are differentially associated with PNIPH yet their cumulative burden is positively associated with this perception. Among those at highest cardiac risk, approximately 1 in 5 denied PNIPH. A greater understanding of factors underlying health perceptions and behaviors is needed to capitalize on cardiovascular preventive healthcare efforts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207