Mortality from Alcoholic Cardiomyopathy: Exploring the Gap between Estimated and Civil Registry Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on civil registries, 26,000 people died from alcoholic cardiomyopathy (ACM) in 2015 globally. In the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study, garbage coded deaths were redistributed to ACM, resulting in substantially higher ACM mortality estimates (96,669 deaths, 95% confidence interval: 82,812-97,507). We aimed to explore the gap between civil registry and GBD mortality data, accounting for alcohol exposure as a cause of ACM. METHODS: = 77 countries. The relationship between registered and estimated mortality rates was assessed by sex and age groups, using Pearson correlation coefficients, in addition to comparing mortality rates with population alcohol exposure-the underlying cause of ACM. RESULTS: Among people aged 65 years or older, civil registry mortality rates of ACM decreased markedly whereas GBD mortality rates increased. The widening gap of registered and estimated mortality rates in the elderly is reflected in a decrease of correlations. The age distribution of alcohol exposure is more consistent with the distribution of civil registry rather than GBD mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults, GBD mortality estimates of ACM seem implausible and are inconsistent with alcohol exposure. The garbage code redistribution algorithm should include alcohol exposure for ACM and other alcohol-attributable diseases.
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 | 0.014 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".