MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592862011 · doi:10.1089/neu.2016.4935

Understanding Length of Stay after Spinal Cord Injury: Insights and Limitations from the Access to Care and Timing Project

2017· article· en· W2592862011 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anthony S. Burns, Argelio Santos, Christiana L. Cheng, Elaine Chan, Nader Fallah, Derek Atkins, Marcel F. Dvorak, Chester Ho, Henry Ahn, Jérôme Paquet, Brian K. Kwon, Vanessa K. Noonan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaPraxis Spinal Cord Institute
FundersHealth CanadaWestern Economic Diversification CanadaGovernment of CanadaRick Hansen Institute
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryMedicineTerminologyDemographicsTraumatic brain injuryHealth carePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpinal cordPsychiatryDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Costs associated with initial hospitalization following spinal cord injury (SCI) are substantial, and a major driver of costs is the length of stay (LOS); that is, the time that the injured individual remains hospitalized prior to community reintegration. Our aim was to study the factors and variables that contribute to LOS following traumatic SCI. Modeling (process mapping of the SCI healthcare delivery system in Canada and discrete event simulation) and regression analysis using a national registry of individuals with acute traumatic SCI in Canada, existing databases, and peer-reviewed literature were used to examine the driver of LOS following traumatic SCI. In different jurisdictions, there is considerable variation in the definitions and methods used to determine LOS following SCI. System LOS can be subdivided into subcomponents, and progression through these is not unidirectional. Modeling reveals that healthcare organization and processes are important contributors to differences in LOS independent of patient demographics and injury characteristics. Future research is required to identify and improve understanding of contributors to LOS following traumatic SCI. This will help enhance system performance. Work in this area will be facilitated by the adoption of common terminology and definitions, as well as by the use of simulations and modeling.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.431
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.002 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations59
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207