MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322064713 · doi:10.1155/2005/905970

Private Costs of Patients Hospitalized with Community‐Acquired Pneumonia

2005· article· en· W2322064713 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Philip Jacobs, Thomas J. Marrie, Peter Calder

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchBayer HealthCare
KeywordsMedicinePneumoniaCommunity-acquired pneumoniaIntensive care medicineMEDLINEEmergency medicineMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a condition which frequently requires hospitalization and consequently, can result in high costs. Little is known of the additional personal resources that are used by patients hospitalized for CAP. OBJECTIVE: To measure the private costs for persons who were hospitalized with CAP for the 30 days after being admitted to hospital using a systematic method of measurement. METHODS: Potential personal cost items were identified by nurses familiar with the treatment of CAP and categorized. Using telephone interviews in conjunction with the cost-identification framework, 60 patients from the Edmonton, Alberta area were surveyed for their private costs associated with CAP for 30 days after admission to hospital. RESULTS: Of the 60 patients surveyed, 49 were older than 65 years of age. The mean private cost was 505 dollars, which amounted to 5.6% of the total societal costs of 8,970 dollars. The distribution was skewed with a small number of patients that had high costs. CONCLUSIONS: This method allows the determination of the societal costs for patients hospitalized with pneumonia, and the costs were not much greater than those to the health care system.

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)0.005
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207