Herr Tur-Tur und die Krankenhausvergleiche: Ein Besuch in der Psychiatrie-Oase
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Currently, financial sponsors and Government officials of the relevant ministries responsible for the German health care system request comparative length-of-stay figures in hospitals as indicators of efficacy of inpatient treatment. In psychiatry such comparisons are considered doubtful because of the heterogeneity of patients in different hospitals. This study compares the length of stay in eight German psychiatric hospitals accounting for individual as well as organisational characteristics. SAMPLE: 27,792 patient records according to the DGPPN-BADO (the standardized psychiatric assessment and discharge battery in Germany) from eight hospitals with a total of 135 wards. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Variance components modelling with random effects using three levels (patients, wards, hospitals). RESULTS: After adjustment for patient and organisational characteristics, there were no significant differences in the average length of stay between the eight hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital comparisons of quality of care require a multilevel approach. Based on our results further comparisons and implementation of quality improvements in inpatient psychiatry should focus on the ward level.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.012 |
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 it