Global disparities in cystic fibrosis outcomes prior to CFTR modulators: A CF registries cohort study in South Africa and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcomes of cystic fibrosis (CF) differ between low-middle income and high-income countries, but comparative data are lacking. We compared South African (SA) and Canadian CF outcomes to explore what disparities existed prior to access of CFTR modulators in Canada. METHODS: in adults. Standardised mean difference (SMD) >10 was considered significant. RESULTS: After excluding Canadians on CFTR modulators and lung transplant recipients, data on 4049 Canadian and 446 SA people was analysed. Compared to Canada, people in SA were younger (median age 15.8 years vs. 24.1 years: SMD 52) with fewer males (47.8% vs 54.2%; SMD 12.5) and White (70.9% vs. 93.3%; SMD 61.3). Class I-III CFTR mutation frequency was similar in SA (n = 384, 86.1%) and Canada (n = 3426, 84.9%). After adjusting for age, gender, diagnosis age, genotype, P.aeruginosa infection and pulmonary treatments, FEV1pp was 8.9% lower (95% CI 6.3% to 11.4%) and poor nutrition 1.7-fold more common (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.19-2.41) in SA compared to Canada. CONCLUSION: Lung function and nutrition was significantly lower in SA compared to Canada. Global disparities in CF outcomes between high and low-middle income countries are likely to widen as CFTR modulators are rapidly scaled up in only high-income countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 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".