Fisher’s Linear Discriminant Function Analysis and its Potential Utility as a Tool for the Assessment of Health-and-Wellness Programs in Indigenous Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus is a growing public health problem affecting persons in both developed and developing nations. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is reported to be several times higher among Indigenous populations compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. Discriminant function analysis (DFA) is a potential tool that can be used to quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of Indigenous health-and-wellness programs (e.g., on-the-land programs, T2DM interventions), by creating a type of pre-and-post-program scoring system. As the communities of the Eeyou Istchee territory, subarctic Quebec, Canada, have varying degrees of isolation, we derived a DFA tool for point-of-contact evaluations to aid in monitoring and assessment of health-and-wellness programs in rural and remote locations. We developed several DFA models to discriminate between those with and without T2DM status using age, fasting blood glucose, body mass index, waist girth, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein, triglycerides, and total cholesterol in participants from the Eeyou Istchee. The models showed a ~97% specificity (i.e., true positives for non-T2DM) in classification. This study highlights how varying risk factor models can be used to discriminate those without T2DM with high specificity among James Bay Cree communities in Canada.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".