Amenable deaths among adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities including Down syndrome: An <scp>Ontario</scp> population‐based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rates of death and avoidable deaths are reportedly higher among people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This study contributes to our understanding of how mortality and intellectual and development disabilities are associated. METHOD: General population and intellectual and developmental disabilities adult cohorts were defined using linked administrative data. All-cause and amenable deaths between 2010 and 2015 were reported for these cohorts and subcohorts with and without Down syndrome. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the impact of potential contributors to amenable deaths. RESULTS: Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities had higher all-cause (6.1 vs. 1.6%) and amenable death percentages (21.4 vs. 14.1%) than general population comparators. Within intellectual and developmental disabilities, those with Down syndrome had higher all-cause (12.0 vs. 6.0%) but lower amenable death percentages (19.2 vs. 21.8%) than those without. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that interventions to reduce amenable deaths target provider-care-recipient interactions and coordination across care and support sectors.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 teacher head, 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".