The Canadian Alliance for Healthy Hearts and Minds: How Well Does It Reflect the Canadian Population?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The intent of the Canadian Alliance for Healthy Hearts and Minds (CAHHM) cohort is to understand the early determinants of subclinical cardiac and vascular disease and progression in adults selected from existing cohorts-the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow's Health, the Prospective Urban and Rural Evaluation (PURE) cohort, and the Montreal Heart Institute Biobank. We evaluated how well the CAHHM-Health Services Research (CAHHM-HSR) subcohort reflects the Canadian population. METHODS: A cross-sectional design was used among a prospective cohort of community-dwelling adults aged 35-69 years who met the CAHHM inclusion criteria, and a cohort of adults aged 35-69 years who responded to the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey-Rapid Response module. The INTERHEART risk score was calculated at the individual level with means and proportions reported at the overall and provincial level. RESULTS: There are modest differences between CAHHM-HSR study participants and the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey-Rapid Response respondents in age (56.3 vs 51.7 mean years), proportion of men (44.9% vs 49.3%), and mean INTERHEART risk score (9.7 vs 10.1). Larger differences were observed in postsecondary education (86.8% vs 70.2%), Chinese ethnicity (11.0% vs 3.3%), obesity (23.2% vs 29.3%), current smoker status (6.1% vs 18.4%), and having no cardiac testing (30.4% vs 55.9%). CONCLUSIONS: CAHHM-HSR participants are older, of higher socioeconomic status, and have a similar mean INTERHEART risk score, compared with participants in the Canadian Community Health Survey. Differing sampling strategies and missing data may explain some differences between the CAHHM-HSR cohort and Canadian community-dwelling adults and should be considered when using the CAHHM-HSR for scientific research.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".