Mortalidade hospitalar e tempo de permanência: comparação entre hospitais públicos e privados na região de Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brasil
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance assessment in health services is essential. The comparison of performance indicators requires the use of risk adjustment strategies. The objective of this paper was to assess variations in clinical performance, measured by hospital mortality and length of stay, between private and public hospitals, while taking into account the hospital case mix. This study is located in the Ribeirão Preto region in São Paulo State, Brazil. From 1996 to 1998, 32,906 patients admitted with cardiovascular and respiratory diagnoses were studied. Variables used for risk adjustment of performance indicators were: sex, age, principal diagnosis, and severity measures based on co-morbidity. Clinical performance in public hospitals as measured by adjusted hospital mortality (OR = 0.41) was better than in private hospitals. Public and private hospitals were not statistically different concerning patients' length of stay. Although some conceptual and methodological problems persist, hospital mortality and other adjusted performance indicators should be considered as useful tools to identify health services' performance problems.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it