MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 9164: Who Receives ASA for Primary Prevention in Canada?: Insight From the PRIMARY CARE AUDIT OF GLOBAL RISK MANAGEMENT (PARADIGM) Study

2011· article· en· W77210806 on OpenAlexaffabout
Milan Gupta, Ilia Ostrovski, Mahesh Kajil, Michelle Tsigoulis, Subodh Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalBrampton Civic Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrimary careAuditPrimary preventionRisk managementFamily medicinePrimary (astronomy)NursingDiseaseAccountingManagementInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The role of ASA for primary CVD prevention is controversial. We assessed the use of ASA in healthy, middle-aged subjects in the PARADIGM study. METHODS: PARADIGM enrolled 3015 men >40 or women >50 to assess trends in CV risk assessment. Subjects with diabetes, vascular disease, or those receiving lipid lowering drugs were excluded. We report on the 406 subjects (13.5%) who were receiving ASA for primary CVD prevention. RESULTS: Subjects prescribed ASA, compared to those not, were more likely to be older (61.6 vs. 55.5y, p<0.0001), male (p<0.001), white Caucasian (88.9 vs. 66.6%, p<0.0001), past/current smokers (43.8 vs. 33.3%, p=0.0004), hypertensive (60.8 vs. 25.7%, p<0.00001), and to have a CV family history (30.9 vs. 23.3%, p=0.002). SBP, DBP, creatinine, hsCRP, waist circumference (WC) and BMI were discriminators of ASA use (all p<0.0005). LDL-c fasting glucose, IFG, and HbA1c did not differ between those prescribed ASA or not. Mean modified FRS for those prescribed ASA vs. not were 22.3 vs. 13.5% respectively (p<0.00001). Of those prescribed ASA, FRS categories were 18% low, 47.8% intermediate, and 34.2% high. In ASA-treated subjects, rates of smoking, HT, family history and mean BP, BMI and hsCRP were similar between genders. Mean HDL and LDL (both p<0.0001), glucose (p=0.05), and HbA1c (p=0.0001), were higher in women than men. Mean FRS was lower in ASA-treated women (14.4 vs. 27.0%, p<0.00001). FRS categories for ASA-treated women vs men were: low (34.4 vs 8.2%), intermediate (43 vs. 34.5%), and high (22.5 vs. 57.3%, all p<0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: In PARADIGM, 13.5% of men >40 and women >50 received ASA for primary CVD prevention. Smoking, HT, family history, hsCRP and abdominal obesity were discriminators of ASA use, yet lipid and glycemic levels were not. Two thirds of ASA-treated subjects had low/intermediate FRS. The majority of ASA use in women was in those with low or intermediate risk scores.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 venueCirculation→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→