MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 12757: Impact of Social Vulnerability on Cardio-Oncology Mortality in the United States

2021· article· en· W3214445000 on OpenAlexaff
Sarju Ganatra, Sourbha S. Dani, Ashish Kumar, Safi U. Khan, Tomas G. Neilan, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, Ana Barac, Joerg Hermann, Monika Leja, Anita Deswal, Michael G. Fradley, Jennifer Liu, Bonnie Ky, Diego Sadler, Aarti Asnani, Lauren A. Baldassarre, Dipti Gupta, Eric H. Yang, Avirup Guha, Sherry‐Ann Brown, Rishi K. Wadhera, Dhruv S. Kazi, Jennifer P. Stevens, Salim S. Hayek, Suzanne J. Baron, Khurram Nasir, Anju Nohria

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVulnerability (computing)GerontologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEnvironmental healthOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Racial and social disparities affect cancer and CVD-related mortality. The relationship between social vulnerability and concomitant cancer and CVD (cardio-oncology) related mortality remains understudied. Methods: We used the CDC Wide-Ranging OnLine Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) database to determine the association between deaths attributed to the presence of concomitant CVD and cancer (ICD-10 codes I00-I09, I11, I13, I20-I51 and C00-C96), and the county-level social-vulnerability index (SVI). SVI measures a community’s vulnerability based on socioeconomic status, household composition, disability, minority status, language, and transportation. We aggregated counties by SVI quartiles (1st: most favorable = 0.00 to 0.25; 4th: least favorable = 0.75 to 1.00) and compared age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) across SVI quartiles. Results: Between 2014 and 2018, the AAMR due to concomitant cancer and CVD was 47.75 (95% CI, 47.66- 47.85) per 100,000 person-years with higher mortality in areas with a higher SVI (Figure). Similarly, CVD and cancer-related mortality was also significantly greater in counties with the highest SVI [(CVD: 1.287 (95% CI 1.284-1.290); Cancer: 1.087 (95% CI 1.084-1.091)]. Moreover, the proportional increase in cardio-oncology mortality between the highest and lowest SVI counties was greater than that observed for CVD or cancer-associated mortality alone (p<0.001). This difference was most striking in adults < 45 years, females, Asian and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. Conclusion: A graded increase in cardio-oncology mortality is observed in counties with higher social vulnerability. The incremental impact of SVI was greater for cardio-oncology mortality than for cancer or CVD mortality alone, particularly in certain demographic groups. These findings highlight the need for targeted resource allocation and public health interventions to address social inequities in cardio-oncology.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→