SIMILARITIES IN SERVICE USE AND COMORBIDITY IN OLDER ADULTS WITH DEMENTIA, DIABETES, OR STROKE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the striking similarities seen across three studies examining health service use and associated costs among community-living older adults with comorbidity and one of dementia, diabetes, or stroke, using linked administrative databases from Ontario, Canada. We identified 376,434 persons with diabetes, 95,399 with dementia, and 29,671 with stroke (2008). Comorbidity prevalence differed, with 75% of the stroke cohort having 3+ comorbidities, compared to 50% for dementia and 46% for diabetes. However, in all three, hypertension and arthritis were most common with a frequency over 75%. Overall utilization increased with comorbidity for the three index conditions. Although per-patient costs differed (highest for stroke, then dementia and diabetes), the relative pattern of costs over time was similar. In each cohort, total service costs increased with comorbidity, with acute care services increasing the most. Although intensity of comorbidity differed among the cohorts, we found similar relationships between comorbidity, utilization and costs.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".