P07.05: Uterine fibroid embolization—inpatient vs outpatient therapy: a comparison of cost, safety and patient satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine if uterine artery embolization (UAE) can be safely performed as an outpatient procedure without increased complications and readmission rates and to determine the Canadian cost difference between performing UAE as an outpatient versus inpatient procedure. We performed a retrospective chart review and patient survey of two groups of patients, 132 patients who underwent inpatient UAE and 20 patients who underwent an outpatient UAE, of which 82 and 18 respectively were successfully surveyed by telephone. Variables examined included presenting complaint(s), post-procedural symptoms, patient satisfaction, and readmission/complication rates. We also performed a detailed Canadian cost analysis comparing inpatient to outpatient UAE. No statistically significant difference between inpatient and outpatient UAE in any of the patient variables measured was found, including presenting complaint(s), post-procedural symptoms, patient satisfaction, and return-to-care/readmission/complication rates. We also found outpatient UAE to cost significantly less than inpatient UAE, primarily from decreased hospital overhead costs for overnight admission. Inpatient UAE costs were Cdn$3216.22 and Cdn$3042.65 for Ontario and British Columbia respectively, versus outpatient costs of Cdn$2194.53 and Cdn$1962.09, a saving of CDN$1021.69 and Cdn$1080.56 for Ontario and British Columbia respectively. Given these results, we would recommend centres consider performing UAE as an outpatient procedure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".