Coronary artery bypass graft surgery: do women cost more?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in women has been associated with worse clinical outcomes than CABG in men. However, little is known about the impact of sex on the cost of CABG. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of sex on hospital course and the cost of CABG. METHODS: Hospital course and cost were examined among 2880 female and 9137 male patients from four Canadian and five American hospitals. Data were obtained from a resource and cost accounting system used by each of the nine hospitals. RESULTS: Among the 12,017 patients who underwent CABG, 24% (n=2880) were women and 76% (n=9137) were men. Women had a significantly longer length of stay (LOS) than did men (10.3+/-0.2 days and 8.9+/-0.08 days, respectively; P<0.0001) and a significantly higher in-hospital mortality than did men (2.6% and 1.5%, respectively; P<0.0001). The total unadjusted cost was higher for women than for men both in Canada (US$11,200+/-268 and US$10,143+/-139, respectively; P<0.0001) and the United States (US$22,715+/-509 and US$19,906+/-269, respectively; P<0.0001). After adjusting for age and comorbid conditions, female sex was associated with a 10% increase in LOS (P<0.0001), a 97% increase in mortality (P=0.0006) and a 7% increase in overall cost (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Compared with men, women undergoing CABG had a modestly increased LOS and a higher mortality. Total in-hospital cost was higher for women in each of the nine hospitals studied. Compared with other clinical variables, female sex is a relatively minor determinant of cost. Nevertheless, because of the expected increase in the number of women undergoing CABG in the future, this increased cost may translate into an important economic burden.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".