MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6991096002

Familial aggregation of childhood health and the socioeconomic gradient of disease: a longitudinal population-based sibling analysis

2011· dissertation· en· W6991096002 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraclass correlationSocioeconomic statusFamily aggregationSiblingCorrelationHousehold incomeFamily incomePublic health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the relationships that emerge between socioeconomic status (SES) and the prevalence of several health outcomes in children of different ages utilizing administrative data housed at The Manitoba Centre for Health Policy (MCHP). This research also determines the effect that family has on a child developing (or not developing) a specific health outcome. Finally, the relationship between prevalence and familial aggregation are examined. The Johns Hopkins ACG(r) Case-Mix System grouped various physician and hospital diagnosis codes into 32 Aggregated Diagnostic Groups (ADGs). Eight of these ADGs were assessed at four age groups (0-3, 4-8, 9-13 & 14-18) for each member of the final study population. Each member was assigned to one of six SES groups, five income quintile groups and one social assistance group. Familial aggregation was determined for eight selected ADGs using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Statistical contrasts were made for SA vs. Q1-Q5 and an overall linear trend (SA – lowest; Q5 – highest) to establish the SES differences for the prevalence and familial aggregation of a particular condition. Many of the conditions across SES had statistically significant (p<0.05) linear and SA vs. Q1-Q5 contrasts for 3 both ICCs and prevalence at all age groups. Of the eight ADGs that familial aggregation was calculated, chronic conditions related to the eye had the highest ICCs at all age groups. Injury ADGs had consistently lower ICCs for all age groups. Factors that affected the results of ICC estimation for binary outcomes include the number of bootstrap selections, the width of the age group and the event rate for the outcome of interest. Suggested future research includes a validity review of ICC estimates for binary outcomes, exploring the variables that may reduce or eliminate the SES gradient for ICCs and exploring the aggregation for different study samples within Manitoba.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→