Cardiac procedures after an acute myocardial infarction across nine Canadian provinces.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Geographical variations in the use of invasive cardiac procedures have been documented. It remains unclear to what extent these variations exist across the Canadian provinces. OBJECTIVE: To describe variation in the use of invasive cardiac procedures and waiting times for these procedures across nine Canadian provinces. METHODS: Using longitudinal, de-identified patient data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, records of patients who had suffered an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in each of nine Canadian provinces between 1997/1998 and 1999/2000 were selected. Rates and median waiting times for percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery were calculated by age, sex and health region. RESULTS: There was a large variation in the use of and waiting times for invasive cardiac procedures across the Canadian provinces studied. In general, cardiac procedure rates in Western provinces were higher than in Eastern provinces, most notably higher than in the Maritime provinces and Ontario. In addition to interprovincial variation, there was also significant regional variation in the rates of revascularization and waiting times. Rates of percutaneous coronary intervention increased over the study period, whereas rates of bypass surgery remained relatively stable. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation in the use of cardiac procedures after AMI exists across Canada and this April represent potential inequalities in the treatment of AMI across Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".