MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024279828 · doi:10.12927/hcpol..18335

Waits for Surgery Following Hip Fracture

2006· article· en· W2024279828 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kira Leeb, Kathleen Morris, Linda Choy, Tracy Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiostatisticsHealth careClinical epidemiologyEpidemiologyHealth economicsSociologyMedicineMedical educationPolitical scienceLawPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Almost all hip fracture patients undergo surgery to repair the fracture. Recent research suggests that timely repair is important for good outcomes following surgery. Patients who had surgical repair of a hip fracture in 2003-2004 were identified using hospitalization data collected by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Time to surgery was calculated from day of admission to day of surgery. The associations of both patient and system characteristics with waits for surgery were considered. While the majority of patients had surgery on the day of or the day following admission, 29% waited two days or longer for surgery. Wait times were related to patients' age, hospital size, day of admission and whether patients were transferred.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207