A systematic review on assessment and management of preventive cardiovascular care in primary health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and men
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In promoting positive cardiovascular health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, there is a need to ensure provision of high-quality risk assessment and management in primary healthcare settings. There is some evidence of gender gaps for Australian women in the provision of cardiovascular risk assessment and management; however, there is little understanding of whether these gaps are also present for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. A mixed-method systematic review was utilised to synthesise existing evidence on the provision of assessment and management against guideline-recommended care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, and determine whether gender disparities in provision of care exist for this population. Sixteen studies that report gender-specific data indicate there are significant gaps in the provision of assessment and management for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and men alike. There is no evidence of incorporation of social and emotional wellbeing into cardiovascular care and limited studies outlining the assessment and management of behaviours and factors that may be protective of cardiovascular health. Furthermore, little is known about the provision of care in mainstream primary health services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it