MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402576198 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004455

Behavioral risk factors and socioeconomic inequalities in ischemic heart disease mortality in the United States: A causal mediation analysis using record linkage data

2024· article· en· W4402576198 on OpenAlexaff
Yachen Zhu, Laura Llamosas‐Falcón, William C. Kerr, Jürgen Rehm, Charlotte Probst

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusMedicineDemographyMarital statusNational Death IndexCohort studyMediationProportional hazards modelGerontologyCohortHazard ratioPopulationEnvironmental healthConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is a major cause of death in the United States (US), with marked mortality inequalities. Previous studies have reported inconsistent findings regarding the contributions of behavioral risk factors (BRFs) to socioeconomic inequalities in IHD mortality. To our knowledge, no nationwide study has been conducted on this topic in the US. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this cohort study, we obtained data from the 1997 to 2018 National Health Interview Survey with mortality follow-up until December 31, 2019 from the National Death Index. A total of 524,035 people aged 25 years and older were followed up for 10.3 years on average (SD: 6.1 years), during which 13,256 IHD deaths occurred. Counterfactual-based causal mediation analyses with Cox proportional hazards models were performed to quantify the contributions of 4 BRFs (smoking, alcohol use, physical inactivity, and BMI) to socioeconomic inequalities in IHD mortality. Education was used as the primary indicator for socioeconomic status (SES). Analyses were performed stratified by sex and adjusted for marital status, race and ethnicity, and survey year. In both males and females, clear socioeconomic gradients in IHD mortality were observed, with low- and middle-education people bearing statistically significantly higher risks compared to high-education people. We found statistically significant natural direct effects of SES (HR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.27 in males; HR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.49 in females) on IHD mortality and natural indirect effects through the causal pathways of smoking (HR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.20 in males; HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.13 in females), physical inactivity (HR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.19 in males; HR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.20 in females), alcohol use (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.09 in males; HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.11 in females), and BMI (HR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.04 in males; HR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.04 in females). Smoking, physical inactivity, alcohol use, and BMI mediated 29% (95% CI, 24%, 35%), 27% (95% CI, 22%, 33%), 12% (95% CI, 10%, 16%), and 5% (95% CI, 4%, 7%) of the inequalities in IHD mortality between low- and high-education males, respectively; the corresponding proportions mediated were 16% (95% CI, 11%, 23%), 26% (95% CI, 20%, 34%), 14% (95% CI, 11%, 19%), and 5% (95% CI, 3%, 7%) in females. Proportions mediated were slightly lower with family income used as the secondary indicator for SES. The main limitation of the methodology is that we could not rule out residual exposure-mediator, exposure-outcome, and mediator-outcome confounding. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, BRFs explained more than half of the educational differences in IHD mortality, with some variations by sex. Public health interventions to reduce intermediate risk factors are crucial to reduce the socioeconomic disparities and burden of IHD mortality in the general US 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.327
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207