MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216411826 · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006809

Regional and socioeconomic disparities in cardiovascular disease in Canada during 2005–2016: evidence from repeated nationwide cross-sectional surveys

2021· article· en· W3216411826 on OpenAlexaffabout
Haijiang Dai, Biao Tang, Arwa Younis, Jude Dzevela Kong, Wen Zhong, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Global Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studySocioeconomic statusMedicineEnvironmental healthPublic healthDemographyPopulationNursingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to examine the temporal trends and patterns of regional and socioeconomic disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Canada during 2005-2016. METHODS: A total of 670 000 adults aged ≥20 years who participated in the Canadian Community Health Surveys between 2005 and 2016 were enrolled for this study. CVD referred to heart disease and stroke in this study. Equivalised household income was used as a proxy of socioeconomic status. Absolute and relative socioeconomic inequalities were measured by slope index of inequality (SII) and relative index of inequality (RII), respectively. RESULTS: In 2015/2016, the overall age-adjusted and sex-adjusted prevalence of heart disease and stroke was 4.80% (95% CI 4.61% to 4.98%) and 1.25% (95% CI 1.13% to 1.36%), respectively. Trend analyses suggested a significant decline in the age-adjusted and sex-adjusted prevalence of heart disease (P for trend <0.001) and a non-significant decline in the age-adjusted and sex-adjusted prevalence of stroke (P for trend=0.058) from 2005 to 2016. Nevertheless, the total number of adults suffering from heart disease and stroke increased by 8.9% and 20.2% over the study period, respectively. Moreover, the age-adjusted and sex-adjusted prevalence of heart disease and stroke varied widely across all health regions, and both of them tended be higher among those with lower income. The SII and RII indicated that there were persistent absolute and relative socioeconomic inequalities in heart disease and stroke across all surveys (eg, SII for heart disease in both sexes, 2005: 0.04 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.04); 2015/2016: 0.03 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.04); RII for heart disease in both sexes, 2005: 1.99 (95% CI 1.75 to 2.27); 2015/2016: 1.77 (95% CI 1.52 to 2.08). CONCLUSION: Geographical and socioeconomic disparities should be taken into account during the further efforts to strengthen preventive measures and optimise healthcare resources for heart disease and stroke 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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Global HealthSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207