MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125238080 · doi:10.1002/sim.5684

Estimating the intensity of ward admission and its effect on emergency department access block

2012· article· en· W2125238080 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Luo, Jiguo Cao, Marcus Gallagher, Janet Wiles

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersAustralian Research CouncilQueensland Health
KeywordsPoisson regressionEmergency departmentBlock (permutation group theory)Hospital admissionMedicineComputer scienceEmergency medicineInternal medicineMathematicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emergency department access block is an urgent problem faced by many public hospitals today. When access block occurs, patients in need of acute care cannot access inpatient wards within an optimal time frame. A widely held belief is that access block is the end product of a long causal chain, which involves poor discharge planning, insufficient bed capacity, and inadequate admission intensity to the wards. This paper studies the last link of the causal chain-the effect of admission intensity on access block, using data from a metropolitan hospital in Australia. We applied several modern statistical methods to analyze the data. First, we modeled the admission events as a nonhomogeneous Poisson process and estimated time-varying admission intensity with penalized regression splines. Next, we established a functional linear model to investigate the effect of the time-varying admission intensity on emergency department access block. Finally, we used functional principal component analysis to explore the variation in the daily time-varying admission intensities. The analyses suggest that improving admission practice during off-peak hours may have most impact on reducing the number of ED access blocks.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207