MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736244222 · doi:10.1186/s12245-017-0150-y

Risk factors for recurrent emergency department visits for hyperglycemia in patients with diabetes mellitus

2017· article· en· W2736244222 on OpenAlexaff
Justin W. Yan, K. Gushulak, M. Columbus, Kristine Van Aarsen, A. Hamelin, George A. Wells, Ian G. Stiell

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentDiabetic ketoacidosisDiabetes mellitusOdds ratioConfidence intervalLogistic regressionKetoacidosisInternal medicinePediatricsInsulinEmergency medicineType 1 diabetesEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with poorly controlled diabetes mellitus may present repeatedly to the emergency department (ED) for management and treatment of hyperglycemic episodes, including diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. The objective of this study was to identify risk factors that predict unplanned recurrent ED visits for hyperglycemia in patients with diabetes within 30 days of initial presentation. METHODS: We conducted a 1-year health records review of patients ≥18 years presenting to one of four tertiary care EDs with a discharge diagnosis of hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Trained research personnel collected data on patient characteristics and determined if patients had an unplanned recurrent ED visit for hyperglycemia within 30 days of their initial presentation. Multivariate logistic regression models using generalized estimating equations to account for patients with multiple visits determined predictor variables independently associated with recurrent ED visits for hyperglycemia within 30 days. RESULTS: There were 833 ED visits for hyperglycemia in the 1-year period. 54.6% were male and mean (SD) age was 48.8 (19.5). Of all visitors, 156 (18.7%) had a recurrent ED visit for hyperglycemia within 30 days. Factors independently associated with recurrent hyperglycemia visits included a previous hyperglycemia visit in the past month (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-5.8), age <25 years (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.5-4.7), glucose >20 mmol/L (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.7), having a family physician (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-4.6), and being on insulin (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.1). Having a systolic blood pressure between 90-150 mmHg (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30-0.93) and heart rate >110 bpm (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.72) were protective factors independently associated with not having a recurrent hyperglycemia visit. CONCLUSIONS: This unique ED-based study reports five risk factors and two protective factors associated with recurrent ED visits for hyperglycemia within 30 days in patients with diabetes. These risk factors should be considered by clinicians when making management, prognostic, and disposition decisions for diabetic patients who present with hyperglycemia.

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)0.003
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations53
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Emergency MedicineSame topicHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patientsFrench-language works237,207