MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173671413 · doi:10.1111/jar.12908

Complete physical examinations in Manitoba adults with an intellectual or developmental disability: A retrospective cohort study

2021· article· en· W3173671413 on OpenAlexaffabout
Iresha Ratnayake, Shahin Shooshtari, Dan Château, Mark Kristjanson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyCohortIntellectual disabilityGerontologyCohort studyPsychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Complete physical examinations (CPE) can identify health disparities in persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities. The objective of this study was to determine and compare rates of CPE among Manitoba adults with and without intellectual or developmental disabilities over time and to identify factors that were associated with receiving a CPE. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study using linked administrative health and non-health data from 1995 to 2015 was conducted. Poisson and logistic regression were used to calculate CPE rates and examine factors associated with CPE. RESULTS: The rates of CPE are decreasing over time and are higher among Manitobans with an intellectual or developmental disability. Characteristics such as being male, living rurally, low socioeconomic status, and high continuity of care led to lower odds of receiving a CPE. CONCLUSIONS: The current state of CPE provision to adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities in Manitoba is encouraging but needs improvement.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207