MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Racial/ethnic differences in cardiovascular outcomes in a universal healthcare system: insights from the CARTaGENE cohort

2021· article· en· W3206222157 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marc-André d’Entremont, Étienne Couture, Minh Thien Nguyen, Jiayi Ni, Andrew T. Yan, Dennis T. Ko, S Abhinav, Shaun G. Goodman, Thao Huynh

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEthnic groupHazard ratioCohortPopulationDemographyRevascularizationProportional hazards modelClinical endpointPsychological interventionGerontologyMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background While prior studies have shown racial/ethnic differences in cardiovascular (CV) outcomes within private or mixed health care systems, it remains uncertain whether inequalities in cardiovascular outcomes exist between different races and ethnicities in universal health care contexts. We aimed to determine whether there are racial/ethnicity disparities in long-term CV outcomes within a single-payer universal health care system. Methods The CARTaGENE study is a population-based prospective cohort study with enrollment of 19,996 individuals between 40–69 years in 2009, in the province of Quebec, Canada. Participants residing in four large metropolitan areas were randomly chosen from the provincial health insurance registry by strata of age, sex, and postal codes. Follow-up was available up to 2016. For this analysis, we retained only participants without prior known CV disease. The primary composite endpoint was time to the first CV event or intervention (CV death, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, coronary revascularization, ischemic stroke, or peripheral vascular event or revascularization). We used unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the association of self-defined race/ethnicity with the primary endpoint. Results There were 17,802 eligible participants with a mean age of 51 years (52.5% females) with 111,312 person-years of follow-up (median follow-up of 6.6 years). South Asian (SA) participants had the highest prevalence of diabetes mellitus (29%) and hypertension (32%). After adjustment for age and sex, SA ethnicity was associated with a 95% relative increase in risk for CV events, while East/Southeast Asian (ESA) ethnicity was associated with a 42% relative decrease in risk for CV events compared to White participants. After further adjustment for socioeconomic status and CV risk factors, ESA ethnicity remained associated with a similar decreased CV risk. In contrast, the association of SA ethnicity with increased CV risk was attenuated after full adjustment for baseline characteristics (Table 1). Conclusions Racial/ethnic disparities in long-term CV outcomes are present in a single-payer universal healthcare setting. ESA ethnicity was associated with a lower risk of long-term CV outcomes. Future studies are needed to corroborate the reduced risk of long-term major CV events associated with ESA ethnicity. Understanding the reasons related to potential CV protection with ESA ethnicity could facilitate endeavors to reduce long-term CV outcomes in other races/ethnicities. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): McGill Health University Center

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→