Early hospital readmission was less likely for hemodialysis patients from facilities with longer median length of stay in the DOPPS study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The length of hospital stay is considered to influence hospital readmission in general. The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS), an international prospective observational study undertaken to establish a relationship between facility practices and dialysis outcomes, started in 1996. Results suggest that the duration of hospital stay is significantly correlated with the probability of early readmission in dialysis patients. Thus, early hospital readmission was observed to be less likely for hemodialysis patients from facilities with longer median length of stay. The lengths of hospital stay for hemodialysis patients differed in the three continents studied. Although socioeconomic pressures may drive the lengths of hospital stay, the duration of hospitalization should be determined keeping in mind the safety of clinical course for each disease. In this forum, a 47-year-old female hemodialysis patient with severe secondary hyperparathyroidism, who had been treated with hemodialysis for 21 years, was hospitalized with severe clinical symptoms. Although the clinical symptoms disappeared 10 days after total parathyroidectomy with autotransplantation, severe hypocalcemia persisted despite large amounts of intravenous calcium gluconate. This patient was hospitalized for a long duration owing to the large calcium deficit in her body. Had the length of her hospital stay been shortened, either she could have needed rehospitalization or her condition could have worsened.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".