MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2409179484

Ontario hospitals--mergers, shorter stays and readmissions.

2002· article· en· W2409179484 on OpenAlexaffabout
Claudio E. Pérez

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHospital readmissionEmergency medicineOddsMyocardial infarctionHospital dischargeOdds ratioPneumoniaPatient dischargeMedical emergencyRestructuringLogistic regressionMEDLINEIntensive care medicineInternal medicineFinanceBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This article examines the association between readmissions of pneumonia and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients to Ontario hospitals in 1998/99, and reductions in length of stay and recent hospital administrative mergers. DATA SOURCE: The data are from the 1998/99 Discharge Abstract Database, maintained by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Cross-tabulations were used to assess unadjusted associations between hospital and patient characteristics and readmission risk. Hierarchical nonlinear models were used to calculate odds of readmission, adjusting for hospital and patient characteristics. MAIN RESULTS: Hospital characteristics that may indicate restructuring--a decrease in mean length of stay or a recent administrative merger--were not associated with readmission of pneumonia or AMI patients within 30 days of discharge. Patients with two or more related hospital admissions in the previous year were at increased risk of readmission.

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 score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→