Somatic health in the Indigenous Sami population - a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review was to survey the current scientific knowledge regarding the state of somatic health among situation of the Indigenous Sami people in Norway, Finland, Sweden and the Kola Peninsula in Russia; and assess the quality of the identified studies. A systematic search in the databases Pubmed, EBSCOhost (AMED, Medline, Cinahl) and Svemed was conducted from January 2000, through December 2017. This systematic search identified 399 articles. After screening abstracts, 93 articles were reviewed in full text, 32 of which met the inclusion criteria. The scientific quality of the evidence was rated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Based on the studies with moderate to high scientific quality, there is evidence for stating that the majority of the Sami included in this review experience good health. Mortality and life expectancy are similar, with only minor differences, to those of a non-Sami population. The cancer risk rate among Sami was lower than that of the general population of Norway, Sweden and Finland. Self-reported myocardial infarction prevalence was similar between Sami and non-Sami, but Angina pectoris was more prevalent among Sami. In Sweden, cardiovascular disease rates were similar between Sami and non-Sami. Musculoskeletal pain symptoms are common among the Sami population, as are obesity and overweight. To conclude, there are knowledge gaps in regard to the somatic health situation of the Indigenous Sami in the circumpolar area, especially in Russia, Finland and Sweden; as current knowledge is mainly based on publications from the SAMINOR study in Norway. No study obtained the highest quality score, suggesting a need to implement longitudinal prospective studies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".