Peripheral Arterial Disease in Nova Scotia: Increased Prevalence, Low Public Awareness, and Poor Edinburgh Claudication Questionnaire Sensitivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study had the following 3 goals: (i) to assess the prevalence of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in a Nova Scotian population; (ii) to evaluate the validity of the Edinburgh Claudication Questionnaire (ECQ) in a Nova Scotian context; and (iii) to evaluate Nova Scotian public knowledge about PAD. Methods: Participants were recruited from 8 sites across Nova Scotia. In 2022, they were recruited at Heartland Tour (HLT) sites-a provincial health-promotion campaign. In 2023, they were recruited in communities coinciding with HLT sites (public [PUB]). Participants completed a demographics questionnaire, ECQ, and had an ankle-brachial index (ABI) measurement. An ABI of < 0.9 was considered positive for presence of PAD. Results: A total of 417 participants were recruited, 263 from HLT, and 154 from PUB. A total of 398 participants had ABI scores resulting in a PAD prevalence of 2.81% (249 participants) in the HLT group, and 5.37% (149 participants) in the PUB group. A total of 394 participants had both ABI and ECQ scores, with a found sensitivity of 6.67% (confidence interval 0.17%-31.95%) and specificity of 97.63% (confidence interval 95.54%-98.91%). A total of 75% of participants (311 of 417) did not have prior knowledge of PAD. Conclusions: The PAD prevalences in both cohorts were higher than anticipated, with the PUB cohort being more than double the national average. This finding raises the following question: should specific PAD primary and/or secondary prevention strategies be targeted within the province? Our study demonstrated that a public-awareness campaign would be highly impactful, owing to a low level of awareness of PAD within both cohorts, and that the ECQ was not an effective screening tool when used on the Nova Scotian population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".