MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patterns of Care and Outcomes Differ for Urban Versus Rural Patients With Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure, Even in a Universal Healthcare System

2011· article· en· W2095776033 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health EconomicsCanadian VIGOUR CentreQuadrise Canada Corporation (Canada)University of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionOdds ratioHeart failureDemographyRural areaCohortOddsHealth careCohort studyPediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Access to medical care differs between urban and rural residents, but the magnitude of these differences and whether they affect outcomes are unknown. We aimed to determine whether outcomes differ for patients with incident heart failure (HF) by urban-rural status. METHODS AND RESULTS: This cohort study used administrative data from Alberta, Canada. Patients with incident HF were identified from April 1, 1999, to December 31, 2005, and followed for 1-year. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess differences in 1-year outcomes after initial HF diagnosis in patients living in rural versus urban settings. We identified 72 043 patients with incident HF (mean age, 72±14; male sex, 50%) of whom 12 173 (17%) died and 29 074 (39%) were hospitalized within 1 year. Although crude all-cause 1-year mortality rates were higher in urban than in rural residents (17.3% versus 15.6%, P<0.001), after adjustment for comorbidities, no significant differences were observed (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.00). However, sex-specific analyses indicated that urban men had a significantly lower risk of mortality than rural men (aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.96). In contrast, no difference was observed between urban and rural women (aOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.10). Urban patients were more likely to have office-based physician visits in the first year after HF diagnosis (aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.17) and exhibited lower rates of hospitalization (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.74) and emergency department visits (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.65) than rural patients. CONCLUSIONS: Even within a universal healthcare system, there are differences in outcomes after HF diagnosis based on location of residence. Urban patients with HF are more likely to receive outpatient care and less likely to be hospitalized or present to the emergency department in the first year after diagnosis than rural patients with HF.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.229 · 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