4.6 Article

A systematic approach to analyze the social determinants of cardiovascular disease

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190960

关键词

-

资金

  1. CONACYT [179431/2012]
  2. National Institute of Cardiology (Mexico)
  3. National Institute of Genomic Medicine (Mexico)
  4. CONACYT Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of human mortality worldwide. Among the many factors associated with the etiology, incidence, and evolution of such diseases; social and environmental issues constitute an important and often overlooked component. Understanding to a greater extent the scope to which such social determinants of cardiovascular diseases (SDCVD) occur as well as the connections among them would be useful for public health policy making. Here, we will explore the historical trends and associations among the main SDCVD in the published literature. Our aim will be finding meaningful relations among those that will help us to have an integrated view on this complex phenomenon by providing historical context and a relational framework. To uncover such relations, we used a data mining approach to the current literature, followed by network analysis of the interrelationships discovered. To this end, we systematically mined the PubMed/MEDLINE database for references of published studies on the subject, as outlined by the World Health Organization's framework on social determinants of health. The analyzed structured corpus consisted in circa 1190 articles categorized by means of the Medical Subheadings (MeSH) content-descriptor. The use of data analytics techniques allowed us to find a number of non-trivial connections among SDCVDs. Such relations may be relevant to get a deeper understanding of the social and environmental issues associated with cardiovascular disease and are often overlooked by traditional literature survey approaches, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据