Comprehensive preventive care assessments for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Part 1: How do we know if it is happening?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine how best to measure the provision of comprehensive preventive care assessment of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with IDD between 40 and 64 years of age in 2013 and 2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: screening), was identified using administrative health data. RESULTS: A total of 28 825 adults with IDD were identified in 2013 and 2014. Overall, 12.1% of adults with IDD received a health examination; 51.2% received a high (≥ 0.6) PCQS. Male patients were more likely to have received all of their eligible screening maneuvers if they had had a health examination compared with female patients (odds ratio of 5.73 vs 3.99, respectively). CONCLUSION: Less than 60% of adults with IDD appear to be receiving comprehensive preventive care. Future studies assessing the quality of preventive care received by adults with IDD should combine health examination billing codes and the PCQS.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".