Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions in Persons with an Intellectual Disability - Development of a Consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There is evidence that the primary care provided for persons with an intellectual disability living in the community has been inadequate. Hospitalization rates for ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) conditions are considered an indicator for access to, and quality of, primary care. The objective of this research was to identify ACS conditions that are applicable to persons with an intellectual disability. Materials and Methods We developed and distributed a survey questionnaire using a modified Delphi process. The participants were clinicians with experience working with people with an intellectual disability. Results All eleven conditions that were considered ACS for the general population met the three primary inclusion criteria. Study participants suggested five other conditions of which four met the primary criteria: constipation, gastroesophageal reflux, epilepsy, and schizophrenic disorders. Conclusions There is a very high degree of agreement as to what constitutes an ACS condition for persons with an intellectual disability. The final list has the potential to be used with other populations with cognitive disabilities and outside of Canada.
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 | 0.103 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".