MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889654052 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31992-5

NCD Countdown 2030: worldwide trends in non-communicable disease mortality and progress towards Sustainable Development Goal target 3.4

2018· article· en· W2889654052 on OpenAlexaff
James E. Bennett, Gretchen A Stevens, Colin Mathers, Ruth Bonita, Jürgen Rehm, Margaret E. Kruk, Leanne M Riley, Katie Dain, André Pascal Kengne, Kalipso Chalkidou, Jessica Beagley, Sandeep P. Kishore, Wanqing Chen, Shekhar Saxena, Douglas Bettcher, John Grove, R Beaglehole, Majid Ezzati

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research CouncilWellcome TrustWorld Health Organization
KeywordsCountdownMedicineEnvironmental healthNon-communicable diseaseDisease burdenMillennium Development GoalsDiseaseDeveloping countryEconomic growthSocioeconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The third UN High-Level Meeting on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) on Sept 27, 2018, will review national and global progress towards the prevention and control of NCDs, and provide an opportunity to renew, reinforce, and enhance commitments to reduce their burden. NCD Countdown 2030 is an independent collaboration to inform policies that aim to reduce the worldwide burden of NCDs, and to ensure accountability towards this aim. In 2016, an estimated 40·5 million (71%) of the 56·9 million worldwide deaths were from NCDs. Of these, an estimated 1·7 million (4% of NCD deaths) occurred in people younger than 30 years of age, 15·2 million (38%) in people aged between 30 years and 70 years, and 23·6 million (58%) in people aged 70 years and older. An estimated 32·2 million NCD deaths (80%) were due to cancers, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes, and another 8·3 million (20%) were from other NCDs. Women in 164 (88%) and men in 165 (89%) of 186 countries and territories had a higher probability of dying before 70 years of age from an NCD than from communicable, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional conditions combined. Globally, the lowest risks of NCD mortality in 2016 were seen in high-income countries in Asia-Pacific, western Europe, and Australasia, and in Canada. The highest risks of dying from NCDs were observed in low-income and middle-income countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, and, for men, in central Asia and eastern Europe. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4-a one-third reduction, relative to 2015 levels, in the probability of dying between 30 years and 70 years of age from cancers, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes by 2030-will be achieved in 35 countries (19%) for women, and 30 (16%) for men, if these countries maintain or surpass their 2010-2016 rate of decline in NCD mortality. Most of these are high-income countries with already-low NCD mortality, and countries in central and eastern Europe. An additional 50 (27%) countries for women and 35 (19%) for men are projected to achieve such a reduction in the subsequent decade, and thus, with slight acceleration of decline, could meet the 2030 target. 86 (46%) countries for women and 97 (52%) for men need implementation of policies that substantially increase the rates of decline. Mortality from the four NCDs included in SDG target 3.4 has stagnated or increased since 2010 among women in 15 (8%) countries and men in 24 (13%) countries. NCDs and age groups other than those included in the SDG target 3.4 are responsible for a higher risk of death in low-income and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. Substantial reduction of NCD mortality requires policies that considerably reduce tobacco and alcohol use and blood pressure, and equitable access to efficacious and high-quality preventive and curative care for acute and chronic NCDs.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations1,362
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207