Index coronary angiography use in Manitoba, Canada: a population-level descriptive analysis of First Nations and non-First Nations recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate recipient characteristics and rates of index angiography among First Nations (FN) and non-FN populations in Manitoba, Canada. SETTING: Population-based, secondary analysis of provincial administrative health data. PARTICIPANTS: All adults 18 years or older who received an index angiogram between 2000/2001 and 2008/2009. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Descriptive statistics for age, sex, income quintile by rural and urban residency and Charlson Comorbidity Index for FN and non-FN recipients. (2) Annual index angiogram rates for FN and non-FN populations and among those rates of 'urgent' angiograms based on acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-related hospitalisations during the previous 7 days. (3) Proportions of people who did not receive an angiogram in the 20 years preceding an ischaemic heart disease (IHD) diagnosis or a cardiovascular death; stratified by age (<65 or ≥65 years old). RESULTS: FN recipients were younger (56.3vs63.8 years; p<0.0001) and had higher Charlson Comorbidity scores (1.32vs0.78; p<0.001). During all years examined, index angiography rates were lower among FN people (2.67vs3.33 per 1000 population per year; p<0.001) with no notable temporal trends. Among the index angiogram recipients, a higher proportion was associated with an AMI-related hospitalisation in the FN group (28.8%vs25.0%; p<0.01) and in both groups rates significantly increased over time. FN people who died from cardiovascular disease or were older (65+years old) diagnosed with IHD were more likely to have received an angiogram in the preceding 20-30 years (17.8%vs12.5%; p<0.01 and 50.9%vs49.5%; p<0.03, respectively). FN people diagnosed with IHD who were under the age of 65 were less likely to have received an angiogram (47.8%vs53.1%; p<0.01) CONCLUSIONS: Index angiogram use differences are suggested between FN and non-FN populations, which may contribute to reported IHD disparities. Investigating factors driving these rates will determine any association between ethnicity and angiography services.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".