High end of life health care costs and hospitalization burden in inflammatory bowel disease patients: A population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: End of life (EOL) care is associated with greater costs, particularly for acute care services. In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), EOL costs may be accentuated due to reliance on hospital-based services and expensive diagnostic tests and treatments. We aimed to compare EOL health care use and costs between IBD and non-IBD decedents. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all decedents of Ontario, Canada between 2010 and 2013 using linked health administrative data. IBD (N = 2,214) and non-IBD (N = 262,540) decedents were compared on total direct health care costs in the last year of life and hospitalization time during the last 90 days of life. RESULTS: During the last 90 days of life, IBD patients spent an average of 16 days in hospital, equal to 2.1 greater adjusted hospital days (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-2.8 days) than non-IBD patients. IBD diagnosis was associated with $7,210 CAD (95% CI $5,005 - $9,464) higher adjusted per-patient cost in the last year of life, of which 76% was due to excess hospitalization costs. EOL cost of IBD care was higher than 15 of 16 studied chronic conditions. Health care costs rose sharply in the last 90 days of life, primarily due to escalating hospitalization costs. CONCLUSIONS: IBD patients spend more time in hospital and incur substantially greater health care costs than other decedents as they approach the EOL. These excess costs could be curtailed through avoidance of unnecessary hospitalizations and expensive treatments in the setting of irreversible deterioration.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".