MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391805812 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000209138

Incidence of Stroke in Indigenous Populations of Countries With a Very High Human Development Index

2024· article· en· W4391805812 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
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, David Tirschwell, Sonia S. Anand, Mark Parsons, Alex Brown, Donald Warne, Matire Harwood, P. Alan Barber, Judith Katzenellenbogen

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPopulationMedicineIncidence (geometry)Context (archaeology)DemographyStroke (engine)Human Development IndexGerontologyGeographyEnvironmental healthHuman development (humanity)Political scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular disease contributes significantly to disease burden among many Indigenous populations. However, data on stroke incidence in Indigenous populations are sparse. We aimed to investigate what is known of stroke incidence in Indigenous populations of countries with a very high Human Development Index (HDI), locating the research in the broader context of Indigenous health. METHODS: We identified population-based stroke incidence studies published between 1990 and 2022 among Indigenous adult populations of developed countries using PubMed, Embase, and Global Health databases, without language restriction. We excluded non-peer-reviewed sources, studies with fewer than 10 Indigenous people, or not covering a 35- to 64-year minimum age range. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and extracted data. We assessed quality using "gold standard" criteria for population-based stroke incidence studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for risk of bias, and CONSIDER criteria for reporting of Indigenous health research. An Indigenous Advisory Board provided oversight for the study. RESULTS: From 13,041 publications screened, 24 studies (19 full-text articles, 5 abstracts) from 7 countries met the inclusion criteria. Age-standardized stroke incidence rate ratios were greater in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians (1.7-3.2), American Indians (1.2), Sámi of Sweden/Norway (1.08-2.14), and Singaporean Malay (1.7-1.9), compared with respective non-Indigenous populations. Studies had substantial heterogeneity in design and risk of bias. Attack rates, male-female rate ratios, and time trends are reported where available. Few investigators reported Indigenous stakeholder involvement, with few studies meeting any of the CONSIDER criteria for research among Indigenous populations. DISCUSSION: In countries with a very high HDI, there are notable, albeit varying, disparities in stroke incidence between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, although there are gaps in data availability and quality. A greater understanding of stroke incidence is imperative for informing effective societal responses to socioeconomic and health disparities in these populations. Future studies into stroke incidence in Indigenous populations should be designed and conducted with Indigenous oversight and governance to facilitate improved outcomes and capacity building. REGISTRATION INFORMATION: PROSPERO registration: CRD42021242367.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0150.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207