MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1598358167

Inflammatory bowel disease--hospitalization.

2004· article· en· W1598358167 on OpenAlexaff
Alice Nabalamba, Çharles N. Bernstein, Craig Seko

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUlcerative colitisMedicineInflammatory bowel diseaseDiseaseCrohn's diseaseInternal medicineColitisCrohn diseaseGastroenterology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This analysis examines trends in hospitalization for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the two main forms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). DATA SOURCES: Data are from the Hospital Morbidity Database for 1983/84 to 2000/01, and from the Health Person-Oriented Information Database for 1994/95 to 2000/01. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Sex- and age-specific rates were calculated for separations attributed to Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Rates and hospital days were also calculated for hospitalizations in which IBD was among the first five diagnostic codes on a patient's discharge abstract. The frequency of rehospitalization was examined. MAIN RESULTS: From the early 1980s to the mid-1990s, annual rates of hospitalization for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis rose slightly, but have since levelled off. Hospitalization rates for both conditions are highest among people in their twenties. The average length of stay for patients with either disease fell from about 2 weeks in 1983/84 to 9 or 10 days in 2000/01. More than a quarter of patients hospitalized for Crohn's disease and over 20% of those with ulcerative colitis were readmitted within the same year.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→