Ulcerative Colitis-Associated Hospitalization Costs: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospitalization costs for ulcerative colitis (UC) following the introduction of infliximab have not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To study predictors of costs for UC patients who were hospitalized for a flare or colectomy. METHODS: Population-based surveillance identified adults (≥18 years of age) admitted to hospital for UC flare or colectomy between 2001 and 2009 in the Calgary Health Zone (Alberta). Medical charts were reviewed and patients stratified into three admission types: responsive to inpatient medical therapy (n=307); emergent colectomy (n=227); and elective colectomy (n=208). The annual median cost with interquartile range (IQR) was calculated. Linear regression determined the effect of admission type on hospital charges after adjusting for age, sex, smoking, comorbidities, disease extent, medication use (eg, infliximab) and year. The adjusted cost increase was presented as the percent increase with 95% CIs. Joinpoint analysis assessed for an inflection point in hospital cost after the introduction of infliximab. RESULTS: Median hospitalization cost for UC flare, emergent colectomy and elective colectomy, respectively, were: $5,499 (IQR $3,374 to $8,904), $23,698 (IQR $17,981 to $32,385) and $14,316 (IQR $11,932 to $18,331). Adjusted hospitalization costs increased approximately 6.0% annually (95% CI 4.5% to 7.5%). Adjusted costs were higher for patients who underwent an elective colectomy (percent increase cost 179.8% [95% CI 151.6% to 211.1%]) or an emergent colectomy (percent increase cost 211.1% [95% CI 183.2% to 241.6%]) than medically responsive patients. Infliximab in hospital was an independent predictor of increased costs (percent increase cost 69.5% [95% CI 49.2% to 92.5%]). No inflection points were identified. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization costs for UC increased due to colectomy and infliximab.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".