Regional Variation in Surgery for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is unclear, and the degree of variation in the rate of antireflux surgery in different regions is unknown. Large variation has significant implications for health care spending and may represent uncertainty among health care providers. The objective of this study was to identify population-based utilization and measure area rate variations in the use of GERD surgery; 11,685 primary antireflux procedures in the provincial administrative health databases were studied. Small-area variation was quantified using 4 measures. The crude rate of antireflux procedures was 11.6/100 000 adults. Patients between the ages of 45 and 64 had the highest rates of surgery. More women than men underwent antireflux surgery (13.6 vs. 9.4 per 100,000). Between counties, adjusted surgical rates ranged from 5.0 to 28.7 per 100,000 persons. Significant regional variation exists for antireflux surgery across Ontario, suggesting that its appropriate role in the management of GERD remains ill-defined.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".