A population-based analysis of health behaviours, chronic diseases and associated costs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health behaviours influence the future incidence of certain common chronic diseases and thus have an impact on health status and utilization of health care services and costs. We analyzed person-level data of the Albertan adult population from the Canadian Community Health Survey, Cycle 1.1 (2000) to determine health care costs associated with specific health behaviours (smoking, sub-optimal diet, physical inactivity) and chronic disease states (heart disease, diabetes, COPD). We found that 74.7 percent of the population exhibited one or more risk behaviours, while 10.5 percent had one or more of the chronic diseases of interest. Greater health care utilization and costs were noted in groups exhibiting risk behaviour and chronic disease states. Approximately 31 percent of health care costs in Alberta were attributable to people having one or more of the three chronic diseases. Our findings of higher health care costs incurred by those exhibiting unhealthy behaviour prior to development of disease, as well as by those with multiple co-existent diseases, are important indicators to guide future prevention and treatment strategies of chronic illness.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".