MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922007722 · doi:10.1161/circ.139.suppl_1.mp50

Abstract MP50: Regional Income and Relative Individual Income, but Not Income Inequality, is Associated With Cardiovascular Health

2019· article· en· W2922007722 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Singh, Stephanie J. Frisbee

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic inequalityMedicineIncome distributionGini coefficientHousehold incomeTotal personal incomeInequalityPopulationHealth equityPopulation healthSocioeconomic statusCommunity healthDemographic economicsDemographyPublic healthEnvironmental healthEconomicsGeographyGross incomePublic economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Result from many studies support that the associations between income, income inequality, and mortality, including CVD mortality, are very complex. Given the urgent need for greater CVD prevention in populations, it is essential to understand how income inequality and income, both in individuals and the regions in which they live, can affect cardiovascular health (CVH). Objective: To examine the associations between regional income and income inequality and individual relative income and individual CVH. Setting: This study was carried out in a nationally representative sample of Canadian adults aged 20 years and older residing in 113 health regions (HR) across Canada. Data and Methods: This study is a cross-sectional design using data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) 2015-2016 database. The CCHS is a nationwide, nationally representative survey that collects information on the health status, health care utilization, and health determinants of the Canadian population. The study outcome was individual CVH, defined using the AHA CVH Index (CVHI) and determined using self-reported responses in CCHS. Regional income inequality was measured as the Gini coefficient of the HR. Regional income was measured as the median household income in the HR. Individual income was measured as relative, not absolute, income representing the individual’s household income compared to those in the HR. Multilevel models were used to examine the associations between regional income and income inequality and individual relative income and individual CVH, controlling for individual age, sex, race and education. Analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4 software. Results: The majority of the population were males (51%), aged 40-60 (37%), with tertiary education (64%) and of the White race (79%). Overall, mean CVH for individuals was 4.5. The national average Gini coefficient across HRs was 0.4. The average individual fell within the 6 th decile for relative household income. Living in a HR with greater income inequality was not associated with lower individual CVH (β= -0.04 p-value=0.91), though living in an HR with higher median household income was associated with better individual CVH (β= 0.32 p=0.004). Finally, having higher relative household income was associated with better individual CVH (β= 0.05 p<0.0001), regardless of the median income of the region of residence. Conclusion: While the inequality of income within a HR did not significantly affect CVH, higher regional income and relative individual income was associated with better CVH. Results of this study contribute to the growing body of evidence attempting to disentangle the true associations between income, income inequality, and CVH.

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)0.004
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 score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207