MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6986305607

Patterns of multimorbidity among immigrants to Canada: an analysis of the CCHS-IMDB

2022· article· en· W6986305607 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationMarital statusDescriptive statisticsPopulationPublic healthMultimorbidityQuality of life (healthcare)Ethnic group
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Multimorbidity is a growing public health concern and is associated with reduced quality of life and adverse health outcomes, yet investigation of multimorbidity among the immigrant population is limited in the Canadian context.\nObjectives: To assess the prevalence and correlates of multimorbidity among immigrants to Canada 18 years of age or older.\nMethods: Data from the 2007 to 2014 Canadian Community Health Survey linked to the Longitudinal Immigration Database were used. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and multivariable regressions.\nResults: Among immigrants, 3.5% had multimorbidity. Immigration factors such as recency of immigration, birth region, immigration category as well as age, marital status, income, employment, physical activity and smoking status were associated with multimorbidity.\nConclusion: Immigration related factors are important considerations when studying multimorbidity among immigrants. Although significant correlates were identified, additional research is required to better understand the nature of the relationship between these factors and multimorbidity.

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)0.003
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)→Same topicChronic Disease Management Strategies→French-language works237,207→