MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901064301 · doi:10.1352/1944-7558-123.6.499

The Association Between Continuity of Primary Care and Preventive Cancer Screening in Women With Intellectual Disability

2018· article· en· W2901064301 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natasha Plourde, Hilary K. Brown, Simone N. Vigod, Virginie Cobigo

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChristian ministryPrimary careMammographyBreast cancerContinuity of carePap testCervical cancerCohortIntellectual disabilityCohort studyCancer screeningFamily medicinePopulationGynecologyCancerDemographyGerontologyCervical cancer screeningHealth careInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women with intellectual disability have low screening rates for breast and cervical cancer. This population-based cohort study examined the association between the level of primary care continuity and breast and cervical cancer screening rates in women with intellectual disability. Data were obtained from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. Neither high (adjusted OR [aOR] = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.88-1.29) nor moderate (aOR = 1.11; 95% CI: 0.91-1.36) continuity of care were associated with mammography screening. Women were less likely to receive a Pap test with high (aOR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.64-0.77) and moderate (aOR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.89) versus low continuity of care. Improving continuity of care may not be sufficient for increasing preventive screening rates.

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)0.009
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal on Intellectual and Developmental DisabilitiesSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207