MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278877745 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v8i2.72

Readmission Rates and Determinants in a Higher-Risk In-patient GIM Population

2013· article· en· W2278877745 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Janet Gilmour, Danielle A. Southern MSc, William A. Ghali

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHospital readmissionEmergency medicineMedical recordPopulationRisk factorHealth careIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Unplanned readmission to hospital is a costly and frequent event. The authors sought to study readmission rates and determinants in a higher-risk in-patient general internal medicine population. They undertook a medical record review of discharges from such a unit. The chart review data were then linked to administrative discharge data and used to query for any readmission within 3 months or 1 year. The authors found that 219 in-patients were discharged alive. Of these, 51 (23.3%) were readmitted to a hospital within 3 months of discharge. In extended Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was a 47.6% readmission rate by 12 months after discharge. Important variables predicting readmission were liver disease, metastatic cancer, and a change in most responsible physician. The latter was a risk factor independent of length of hospital stay. The authors demonstrate that patients admitted to a general internal medicine service are at high risk for readmission to hospital. A change in the most responsible physician during the index admission is an independent risk factor for readmission. Processes around the transfer of care of patients between physicians may provide an opportunity for improvement in readmission rates and overall quality of care.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of General Internal MedicineSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207