MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152616643 · doi:10.26633/rpsp.2021.42

Defunciones por COVID-19: distribución por edad y universalidad de la cobertura médica en 22 países

2021· review· es· W3152616643 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Romain Fantin, Gilbert Brenes Camacho, Cristina Barboza‐Solís

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Panamericana de Salud Pública · 2021
Typereview
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political sciencePhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Relate standardized age distribution of COVID-19 deaths in 22 countries in the Americas and Europe to different indicators of population characteristics and health systems. METHODS: Distributions of COVID-19 deaths by age group in 22 countries of the Americas and Europe were standardized based on the age pyramid of the world's population. Correlations were calculated between the standardized proportion of people aged <60 years among the deceased and each of six indicators. RESULTS: Standardization based on the world age pyramid revealed considerable differences in age distribution among countries; the proportion of people aged <60 years was higher in Latin America and the United States than in Canada or Western Europe. The standardized proportion of people aged <60 years among persons who died of COVID-19 is strongly correlated to the existence of universal quality medical coverage (r=-0.92, p<0.01). This relationship remained significant after being adjusted for the other indicators. CONCLUSION: We propose that weaknesses in medical coverage of the population may have created higher case-fatality in populations aged <60 years in Latin America and the United States.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.371 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Panamericana de Salud PúblicaSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207