MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612035487 · doi:10.5430/jha.v6n3p41

The outpatient assessment of patients with anemia by a general internal medicine service

2017· article· en· W2612035487 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Heather McFadgen, S. Couban, Sarah Doucette, A. Kreuger-Naug, Sudeep Shivakumar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnemiaReferralInternal medicineCohortRetrospective cohort studyHematologyHemoglobinDemographicsPediatricsFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia, 2,400-2,800 new outpatient referrals for hematology consultation are received annually and approximately 10% of these referrals are specifically for isolated anemia. In recent years, such referrals have been sent from hematology to general internal medicine (GIM) for assessment and management. A retrospective chart review was conducted of a cohort of 99 patients from 2013 to describe the demographics, assessment, management and outcome of these patients, as well as to inform whether this practice should continue. The median age of patients was 60.3 years (min 19.4, max 97.6) and 62% were female. The median hemoglobin level was 109.0 g/L (min 66, max 137) at the time of referral and the median wait time was 53 days (min 8 days, max 171 days). Pearson’s correlation analysis revealed that those with lower hemoglobin levels were seen more quickly. The patients had an additional 2.8 comorbidities on average, and were significantly more likely to receive non-anemia related adjustment to care with increasing number of comorbidities. A small proportion of patients (n = 5, 5.1%) were referred from GIM back to hematology, whereas 21% were referred to gastroenterology. A small number of patients (n = 5, 5.1%) underwent a bone marrow aspirate and biopsy. The most common diagnoses identified in the initial clinic letters were iron deficiency anemia (n = 59, 59.6%) and anemia of chronic disease (n = 8, 8.1%). 26.3% did not have a diagnosis identified. These findings support our practice to have patients with an isolated anemia evaluated by a general internist rather than a hematologist. Most of these patients had iron deficiency anemia or the anemia of chronic disease and received additional care for their comorbid conditions in the GIM clinic. Further work will help to define how such patients can be most effectively assessed and treated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.421 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207