MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1425345059

Exploring Factors Associated with Non-Urgent Emergency Department Visits and Hospital Admissions for Diabetes Related Problems in Three Community Based Hospitals in Southwestern Ontario

2015· article· en· W1425345059 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tomasina Malott

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentLogistic regressionContext (archaeology)Type 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusPopulationEmergency medicineTriageMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purposes of this study were to explore the independent predictors of non-urgent ED visits for diabetes related problems and to compare the rates of hospitalization between urgent and non-urgent ED visits for diabetes related problems. This study was completed within the context of a secondary data analysis on a subset of population based data pertaining to ED visits and hospital admissions made between 2009 and 2011 in the Windsor-Essex region of Ontario, Canada. A sample of 1913 patient observations was analyzed using multivariate logistic regression using generalized estimating equations modeling. The findings suggested that age, type of diabetes, main problem/complaint, hospital type, ambulatory type, and proximity to ED were independent predictors of non-urgent ED visits for diabetes related problems. This study also found that those who were triaged as urgent were more likely to be admitted for their diabetes related problems compared to individuals who were triaged as non-urgent.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207