Comparison of mortality hazard ratios associated with health behaviours in Canada and the United States: a population-based linked health survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modern health surveillance and planning requires an understanding of how preventable risk factors impact population health, and how these effects vary between populations. In this study, we compare how smoking, alcohol consumption, diet and physical activity are associated with all-cause mortality in Canada and the United States using comparable individual-level, linked population health survey data and identical model specifications. METHODS: The Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) (2003-2007) and the United States National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) (2000, 2005) linked to individual-level mortality outcomes with follow up to December 31, 2011 were used. Consistent variable definitions were used to estimate country-specific mortality hazard ratios with sex-specific Cox proportional hazard models, including smoking, alcohol, diet and physical activity, sociodemographic indicators and proximal factors including disease history. RESULTS: A total of 296,407 respondents and 1,813,884 million person-years of follow-up from the CCHS and 58,232 respondents and 497,909 person-years from the NHIS were included. Absolute mortality risk among those with a 'healthy profile' was higher in the United States compared to Canada, especially among women. Adjusted mortality hazard ratios associated with health behaviours were generally of similar magnitude and direction but often stronger in Canada. CONCLUSION: Even when methodological and population differences are minimal, the association of health behaviours and mortality can vary across populations. It is therefore important to be cautious of between-study variation when aggregating relative effect estimates from differing populations, and when using external effect estimates for population health research and policy development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".