MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Variation in Quality of Care after Emergency General Surgery Procedures in the Elderly

2011· article· en· W2121326686 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Surgeons · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConcordanceOdds ratioLogistic regressionYoung adultConfidence intervalOddsEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The elderly (age ≥65 years) comprise an increasing proportion of patients undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS) procedures and have distinct needs compared with the young. We postulated that the needs of the elderly require different processes of care than those required for the young to assure optimal outcomes. To explore this hypothesis, we evaluated 30-day outcomes following EGS procedures in the young and the elderly and determined whether hospital performance was consistent across these 2 age strata. STUDY DESIGN: With data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2005 to 2008), regression models were constructed for serious morbidity and mortality for all patients undergoing EGS procedures and separately for young and elderly patients. These models allowed for estimation of the risk of adverse outcomes associated with advanced age and the generation of hospital-level observed to expected (O/E) ratios. We evaluated the correlation between hospital O/E ratios for the young and the elderly and the concordance of outlier status (hospitals with CIs of O/E ratios excluding 1) with weighted κ across these 2 age groups. RESULTS: Among 68,003 procedures at 186 hospitals, elderly patients had a higher crude and adjusted risk for serious morbidity (27.9% versus 9.7%, p < 0.0001; odds ratio 1.17, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.24) and mortality (15.2% versus 2.5%, p < 0.0001; odds ratio 2.29, 95% CI 2.09 to 2.51). When outcomes for elderly versus younger patients were compared, there was fair to moderate agreement on hospital performance for serious morbidity (r = 0.43; κ = 0.30) but not for mortality (r = 0.10; κ = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients are at substantially greater risk for adverse events following EGS procedures. Hospitals had only slight agreement in mortality outcomes in the elderly compared with those in young patients. Processes of care that may account for this disparity should be further investigated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.264 · 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