The Economic Burden of Autonomic Dysreflexia during Hospitalization for Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to determine the economic burden of autonomic dysreflexia (AD) from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system in a case series of individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) presenting to emergency care. In doing so, we sought to illustrate the potential return on investments in the translation of evidence-informed practices and developments in the prevention, diagnosis, and management of AD. Activity-based costing methodology was employed to estimate the direct healthcare or hospitalization costs of AD following presentation to the emergency department. Differences in trends were noted between patients who were promptly diagnosed, managed, and discharged, and patients whose experience followed a less direct or ideal path to discharge. We recorded 29 emergency room visits for conditions ultimately diagnosed as AD. Overall, median length of stay was 3 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 1.25-5.75), but extended up to 103 consecutive days. Cost analysis revealed median healthcare costs of $5029 (IQR = $2397-9522) for hospital admissions for AD, with the highest estimated hospital cost for a single admission > $190,000. Emergency room admissions resulting from AD can result in dramatic healthcare costs. Delayed diagnosis and inefficient management of AD may lead to further complications, adding to the strain on already limited healthcare resources. Prompt recognition of AD; broader translation of evidence-informed practices; and novel diagnosis, self-management, and/or therapeutic/pharmaceutical applications may prove to mitigate the burden of AD and improve patient well-being.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".