MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092570222 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065560

Surgery or Consultation: A Population-Based Cohort Study of Use of Orthopaedic Surgeon Services

2013· article· en· W2092570222 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Elizabeth M. Badley, Mayilée Cañizares, Crystal MacKay, Nizar N. Mahomed, Aileen M. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesResearch CanadaPublic Health OntarioToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsMedicineOrthopedic surgeryMEDLINECohortPopulationFamily medicineSurgeryGeneral surgeryPathologyEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This population-based cohort study has the objective to understand the sociodemographic characteristics and health conditions of patients who do not receive surgery within 18 months following an ambulatory visit to an orthopaedic surgeon. METHODS: Administrative healthcare databases in Ontario, Canada were linked to identify all patients making an initial ambulatory visit to orthopaedic surgeons between October 1(st), 2004 and September 30(th), 2005. Logistic regression was used to examine predictors of not receiving surgery within 18 months. RESULTS: Of the 477,945 patients in the cohort 49% visited orthopaedic surgeons for injury, and 24% for arthritis. Overall, 79.3% did not receive surgery within 18 months of the initial visit, which varied somewhat by diagnosis at first visit (84.5% for injury and 73.0% for arthritis) with highest proportions in the 0-24 and 25-44 age groups. The distribution by income quintile of patients visiting was skewed towards higher incomes. Regression analysis for each diagnostic group showed that younger patients were significantly more likely to be non-surgical than those aged 65+ years (age 0-24: OR 3.45 95%CI 3.33-3.57; age 25-44: OR 1.30 95%CI 1.27-1.33). The odds of not getting surgery were significantly higher for women than men for injury and other conditions; the opposite was true for arthritis and bone conditions. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of referrals were for expert diagnosis or advice on management and treatment. The findings also suggest socioeconomic inequalities in access to orthopaedic care. Further research is needed to investigate whether the high caseload of non-surgical cases affects waiting times to see a surgeon. This paper contributes to the development of evidence-based strategies to streamline access to surgery, and to develop models of care for non-surgical patients to optimize the use of scarce orthopaedic surgeon resources and to enhance the management of musculoskeletal disorders across the care continuum.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207