MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028642067 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2013.23044

All-Cause Readmission to Acute Care for Cancer Patients

2012· article· en· W2028642067 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hong Ji, Hani Abushomar, Xi-Kuan Chen, Cheng Qian, Darren Gerson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentCancerEmergency medicineAcute careHospital readmissionHealth careIntensive care medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent Canadian Institute for Health Information report on all-cause readmission identified that cancer patients had higher-than-average readmission rates. This study provides further insight on the experience of cancer patients, exploring the risk factors associated with readmission at patient, hospital and community levels. An analysis showed that patient characteristics, including the reason for initial hospitalization, sex, co-morbidity levels, admission through the emergency department and the number of previous acute care admissions, were associated with readmission for cancer patients. In addition, we found that the readmission rate for these patients varied by hospital size and whether the patients lived in rural or urban locations.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207