Strategic Impact of a New Academic Endocrine Surgery Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A minority of medical centers possess a dedicated endocrine surgery program. Here we assess the short-term impact of a new endocrine surgery program on institutional case volumes and financial endpoints. METHODS: We studied all endocrine procedures performed over a 5-year period spanning the inception of the endocrine surgery program at UCLA. Institutional and state-level data on patient geographic origin, discharges for endocrine diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), and hospital-side charges and costs were examined. RESULTS: Total endocrine case volume increased 112% (264 to 559 cases annually) over the study period. The relative increase was greater for parathyroid (56 to 196, 250%, P < 0.0001) and adrenal (11 to 31, 181%, P = 0.06) procedures compared to thyroid procedures (317 to 442, 39%). The endocrine case volume of nonspecialist surgeons remained stable over the study period. Growth in referrals arose from previously unrepresented zip codes and was associated with an increase in the mean distance traveled for care (2006, 44 miles vs. 2009, 92 miles, P < 0.01). In each DRG, UCLA attained the top market position within one year of the program's inception, corresponding to an overall 27% increase in regional market share. Total hospital charges for endocrine DRGs rose 161% to $14.7 million annually, while the cost of parathyroid surgery fell 34% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of an academic endocrine surgery program can cause fundamental shifts in referral patterns within a competitive, densely populated metropolitan environment. Hospitals should consider the inclusion of an endocrine surgery program in strategic planning initiatives.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".