Canadian Variation in Blood Product Demand Is Influenced by Provincial Rates of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: Despite similarities in demography and health care delivery, Canadian provinces exhibit significant variation in population adjusted-rates of blood product usage. A study was conducted to identify factors which underlie this variation. METHODS: Potential drivers of blood product consumption were identified through literature review, and then mapped to parameters for which provincial data were available from analytic reports published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Blood product issues per province for the year 2001 were obtained from annual reports published by Canadian Blood Services and HémaQuébec. All data were controlled for provincial population using data from Statistics Canada. Linear regressions for each parameter were calculated separately for erythrocyte, plasma and platelet issues. Variables that were statistically significant by univariate regression analysis were subjected to multiple regression modeling. RESULTS: Provincial variation in erythrocyte demand was statistically correlated with the following by univariate regression analysis: population density, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures and peptic ulcer diagnoses. By multivariate analysis, only CABG procedures continued to have a statistically significant correlation. For plasma issues, univariate analysis revealed average physician age, average specialist age, and CABG procedures as statistically significant drivers. However, by multivariate analysis only CABG procedures retained statistical significance. For platelet issues, average specialist age, cardiovascular procedures, CABG procedures, and number of full-time equivalent general surgeons were statistically significant drivers of provincial variation. However, none of these variables retained statistical significance by multiple regression modeling. CONCLUSIONS: The population-adjusted rate of coronary artery bypass procedure graft surgery was a statistically significant driver of provincial variation in erythrocyte and plasma issues in the year 2001, a finding which may be of use in demand forecasting.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".