MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802245573 · doi:10.1007/s10729-018-9446-6

Modelling mortality and discharge of hospitalized stroke patients using a phase-type recovery model

2018· article· en· W2802245573 on OpenAlexafffund
Bruce L. Jones, Sally McClean, David A. Stanford

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care Management Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHealth administrationHealth informaticsStroke (engine)MedicinePhase (matter)Nursing researchPublic healthHospital dischargeEmergency medicineInternal medicineNursingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We model the length of in-patient hospital stays due to stroke and the mode of discharge using a phase-type stroke recovery model. The model allows for three different types of stroke: haemorrhagic (the most severe, caused by ruptured blood vessels that cause brain bleeding), cerebral infarction (less severe, caused by blood clots) and transient ischemic attack or TIA (the least severe, a mini-stroke caused by a temporary blood clot). A four-phase recovery process is used, where the initial phase depends on the type of stroke, and transition from one phase to the next depends on the age of the patient. There are three differing modes of absorption for this phase-type model: from a typical recovery phase, a patient may die (mode 1), be transferred to a nursing home (mode 2) or be discharged to the individual's usual residence (mode 3). The first recovery phase is characterized by a very high rate of mortality and very low rates of discharge by the other two modes. The next two recovery phases have progressively lower mortality rates and higher mode 2 and 3 discharge rates. The fourth recovery phase is visited only by those who experience a very mild TIA, and they are discharged to home after a short stay. The novelty of our approach to phase representation is two-fold: first, it aligns the phases with labelled diagnosis states, representing stages of illness severity; second, the model allows us to obtain expressions for Key Performance Indicators that are of use to healthcare professionals. This allows us to use a backward estimation process where we leverage the fact that we know the phase of admission (the diagnosis), but not which phases are subsequently entered or when this happens; this strategy improves both computational efficiency and accuracy. The model has clear practical value as it yields length of stay distributions by age and type of stroke, which are useful in resource planning. Also, inclusion of the three modes of discharge permits analyses of outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care Management ScienceSame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207