MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1542163410 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v7n6p156

Utilization and Cost of Health Services in Individuals With Traumatic Brain Injury

2015· review· en· W1542163410 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Clara E. Dismuke, Rebekah J. Walker, Leonard E. Egede

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsEthnic groupTraumatic brain injuryMedicinePopulationInclusion (mineral)Environmental healthInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthPoison controlPsychiatryPsychologyPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) has gained attention in the past decade as a "signature injury" in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. TBI is a major burden for both the military and civilian population in the US and worldwide. It is a leading cause of death and disability in the US and a major health services resource burden. We seek to answer two questions. What is the evidence regarding the association of TBI with health services utilization and costs in the US and worldwide? What is the evidence regarding racial/ethnic, gender, geographic, socio-economic and other disparities in health services utilization and cost in the US and worldwide? To attain this goal we searched several databases using key words to perform a systematic review of the literature since 2000. We found 36 articles to be eligible for inclusion in the review. The evidence demonstrates a wide variation in health services utilization and costs depending on population of study and severity of TBI. The evidence also supports the existence of racial/ethnic, gender, insurance, geographic disparities in the US as well as other unique disparities worldwide.

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)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0120.014
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations53
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207