MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161464473 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.35711

Hospitalizations among people with Down syndrome: A nationwide population‐based study in Denmark

2013· article· en· W2161464473 on OpenAlexaff
Jin Liang Zhu, Henrik Hasle, Adolfo Correa, Diana Schendel, Jan M. Friedman, Jørn Olsen, Sonja A. Rasmussen

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineDown syndromeDemographyPediatricsPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most persons with Down syndrome (DS) now survive to adulthood, but their health care needs beyond childhood are not well described. We followed a national cohort of 3,212 persons with DS and a reference cohort of persons without DS through the Danish National Hospital Register from January 1, 1977, to May 31, 2008. Poisson regression was used to calculate rate ratios for numbers of overnight hospital admissions and hospital days. During the study period, persons with DS had more than twice the rate of hospital admissions and nearly three times as many bed-days as the population as a whole. Malformations, diseases of the respiratory system, and diseases of the nervous system or sensory organs were the principal indications for hospital admissions. The higher rate ratios for hospital admissions were seen especially among persons less than 20 years of age. Hospitalizations for neoplasms or for diseases of the musculoskeletal system or connective tissue were much less frequent among adults with DS. As survival among persons with DS continues to improve, these findings are likely to be useful for health care planning, although the potential utility may be different for different health care systems.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0050.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.299 · 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.

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

Citations41
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207