Mortality and Readmission Rates After Hospitalization for Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Events in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOALS: We determined yearly rates of upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) hospitalizations in Quebec, Canada and compared the 1-year readmission and mortality risks among those discharged from lower versus upper GI hospitalizations. BACKGROUND: The burden of serious upper and lower GI events is substantial. STUDY: Demographic, medical, pharmaceutical, and hospital records were used in a retrospective cohort study to assess risks of mortality and hospital readmission for upper and lower GI events among patients 50 years and older during 1998 to 2006. RESULTS: Among included 39,771 GI hospitalizations, 5238 were from 1998 to 1999, and 5050 from 2005 to 2006. Rates of upper GI hospitalizations decreased in the study period, whereas that of lower GI events did not change. The risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with small bowel versus upper GI events [odds ratio 2.11; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.81-2.47] and lower in patients with colon/rectal events 0.30 (0.25-0.36). One-year mortality risk after discharge was lower in patients with lower versus upper GI events (small bowel hazard ratio 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93; and colon/rectal: 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83). Compared to upper GI events, the risk of hospital readmission was higher in those with small bowel 1.53 (1.19-1.97) and similar in those with colon/rectal events 1.12 (0.96-1.31). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of upper GI events may be decreasing, but remains over 3 times as high as that of lower GI events and among those admitted for GI events, about 80% of in-hospital mortality occurred in those with upper GI problems. Although GI events in the small bowel are less frequent than those in upper or lower GI tract, they are the most severe and are associated with higher risks of mortality and hospital readmissions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".