MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4319008002 · doi:10.1161/str.54.suppl_1.140

Abstract 140: The Incidence Of Stroke In Indigenous Populations Of Countries With A Very High Human Development Index: A Systematic Review.

2023· article· en· W4319008002 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anna Balabanski, Angela Dos Santos, John Woods, Chloe A. Mutimer, Amanda G. Thrift, Timothy Kleinig, Astrid M. Suchy‐Dicey, Susanna Ragnhild Andersdatter Siri, Bernadette Boden‐Albala, Rita Krishnamurthi, Valery L. Feigin, Dedra Buchwald, Annemarei Ranta, Christina Storm Mienna, Carol Zavaleta-Cortijo, Leonid Churilov, Luke J. Burchill, Deborah Zion, W.T. Longstreth, Sonia S. Anand, Mark Parsons, Alex Brown, Donald Warne, Matire Harwood, Judith Katzenellenbogen

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousMedicinePopulationIncidence (geometry)Human Development IndexDemographyStroke (engine)Socioeconomic statusGerontologyEnvironmental healthHuman development (humanity)Economic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Despite known socioeconomic and health disparities affecting Indigenous populations in developed countries, stroke incidence data are sparse. With Indigenous Advisory Board oversight, we undertook a systematic review to compare Indigenous with non-Indigenous stroke incidence rates in countries with a very high Human Development Index (HDI). Methods: We identified population-based stroke incidence studies published from 1990-2022 in Indigenous adult populations of developed countries using PubMed, EMBASE and Global Health databases, without language restriction. We excluded non-peer-reviewed sources, studies with <10 Indigenous people, or studies not covering a 35-64 year minimum age range. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, and extracted data. We assessed quality using "ideal" criteria for population-based stroke incidence studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for risk of bias, and CONSIDER criteria for Indigenous research. Results: Among 13,041 publications, 24 studies (19 full text, 5 abstracts) from 7 countries met inclusion criteria. Compared with respective non-Indigenous populations (Fig 1), age-standardised incidence rates were greater in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians (ratios ranging from 1.7-3.2), American Indians (1.2), Sámi of Sweden/Norway (1.08-2.14), and Singaporean Malay (1.7-1.9), with higher rate ratios at younger ages. Studies had substantial heterogeneity in design and risk of bias. Few investigators reported Indigenous stakeholder involvement. Conclusions: In countries with a very high HDI, available data suggest marked disparities in stroke incidence in Indigenous populations, although there are gaps in data availability and quality. Indigenous stakeholder involvement in studies is infrequently reported. A greater understanding of stroke incidence in these populations is imperative for informing effective societal responses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.008
Bibliometrics0.0160.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors→French-language works237,207→