Know Your Heart: Rationale, design and conduct of a cross-sectional study of cardiovascular structure, function and risk factors in 4500 men and women aged 35-69 years from two Russian cities, 2015-18
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Russia has one of the highest rates of cardiovascular disease in the world. The International Project on Cardiovascular Disease in Russia (IPCDR) was set up to understand the reasons for this. A substantial component of this study was the Know Your Heart Study devoted to characterising the nature and causes of cardiovascular disease in Russia by conducting large cross-sectional surveys in two Russian cities Novosibirsk and Arkhangelsk. The study population was 4542 men and women aged 35-69 years recruited from the general population. Fieldwork took place between 2015-18. There were two study components: 1) a baseline interview to collect information on socio-demographic characteristics and cardiovascular risk factors, usually conducted at home, and 2) a comprehensive health check at a primary care clinic which included detailed examination of the cardiovascular system. In this paper we describe in detail the rationale for, design and conduct of these studies.
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 | 0.128 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".