MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Direct Health Care Costs After Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury

2005· article· en· W1976274425 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donna M Dryden, L. Duncan Saunders, P Jacobs, Donald Schopflocher, Brian H. Rowe, Laura May, Niko Yiannakoulias, Lawrence W. Svenson, Donald C. Voaklander

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryMedicineIndirect costsHealth carePublic healthPopulationCohortOccupational safety and healthCohort studyEnvironmental healthEmergency medicinePhysical therapyMedical emergencyNursingPsychiatrySpinal cordBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The objective was to quantify direct health care costs attributable to traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: This population-based cohort study followed individuals with SCI from date of injury to 6 years postinjury. SCI cases were matched to a comparison group randomly selected from the general population. Administrative data from a Canadian province with a universal publicly funded health care system and centralized health databases were used. Costs included hospitalizations, physician services, home care, and long-term care. RESULTS: Attributable costs in the first year were $121,600 (2002 $CDN) per person with a complete SCI, and $42,100 per person with an incomplete injury. In the subsequent 5 years, annual costs were $5,400 and $2,800 for persons with complete and incomplete SCIs, respectively. CONCLUSION: Direct costs in the first year after SCI are substantial. In the subsequent 5 years, individuals with SCI will continue to accrue greater costs than the general public.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations100
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207