MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluating the socioeconomic burden of pulmonary arterial hypertension on employment and workplace productivity: A Canadian, cross-sectional study

2024· article· en· W4404100400 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brandon Budhram, Jamie Myrah, Cynthia M. Westerhout, Courtney Gubbels, Wendimagegn Alemayehu, Evelyn Budd, Ted Abraham, Jason Weatherald

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreMerck Canada Inc. (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyProductivitySocioeconomic statusMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a serious condition that commonly affects working-age individuals. This study evaluates the socioeconomic burden of PAH with an emphasis on workplace- and activity-related limitations. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of symptomatic patients ≥18 years with self-reported Group 1 PAH using surveys distributed between 15-08-2023 and 09-10-2023. Workplace- and activity-related limitations were assessed using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire. Predictors of non-employment were assessed using logistic regression. Results: 217 patients were included. Most patients were female (84%) and White (84%) with a median age of 60 years (IQR 46, 68). The majority of patients were self-reported functional class (FC) II (109 patients, 50.2%) or III (73 patients, 33.6%). Of 151 (69.6%) non-employed patients, 76 (50.3%) were retired and 43 (28.5%) reported disability. Of 61 (21.8%) working patients, PAH-related impairment was 42% (SD 29.0%), overall work impairment was 46% (SD 31.6%), and activity impairment was 54% (SD 29.2%). Predictors of employment included younger age, better FC, and being in a living-together relationship (Figure 1). Conclusion: Patients with PAH were frequently not employed. Among employed patients, diminished workplace productivity and activity were commonly reported. erj;64/suppl_68/PA2498/F1 F1 F1

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→