MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788227622 · doi:10.5430/jha.v7n1p27

Risk predictors for hospital readmission in a low socio-economic and underserved population

2018· article· en· W2788227622 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tyler Couch, Matthew Peterson, Rodney G. Bowden, Grant B. Morgan, Jackson O. Griggs, Ronald L. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSocioeconomic statusEmergency medicinePopulationBlood pressureHealth careDisadvantagedHospital readmissionPovertyDemographyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Hospital readmissions are significant and potentially preventable sources of healthcare cost in the United States. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishes the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) in an attempt to reduce readmissions by penalizing institutions whose 30-day readmission rates are above the national average. The current study examines demographic and clinical variables associated with early hospital readmission in a low socioeconomic status, underserved population.Methods: A secondary data analysis was conducted of 2,536 patients from the acute primary care facilities who were hospitalized. Age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, body temperature, pulse rate, and days to follow up visit were analyzed in a sample of 2,536 hospitalized patients at or below 200% of federal poverty guidelines in Central Texas to determine association with risk of 0-30- (30), 31-60- (60) and 61-90- (90) day all-cause readmission.Results: Multinomial statistical analysis found pulse rate was associated with 30-, 60-, and 90-day readmission as compared to a control group. Days to follow-up were associated with decreased risk of readmission in all groups, and passive smoking status was associated with decreased risk of 90-day readmission as compared to a control group.Conclusions: Results offer healthcare providers with tools for potentially identifying patients at elevated risk for readmission in a disadvantaged population and suggest further investigation of other clinical and laboratory variables as predictors of readmission risk.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207