Cancer patients as frequent attenders in emergency departments: A national cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer patients contribute significantly to emergency department (ED) utilization. The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with patients becoming ED frequent attenders (FA) after a cancer-related hospitalization. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using national administrative, billing, and death records of Singapore residents discharged alive from Singapore public hospitals from January 2012 to December 2015, with a primary discharge diagnosis of cancer. Patients with four or more ED visits within any 12-month period after discharge from their index hospitalization were classified as FA. Time to FA distribution was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and factors associated with risk of FA were identified using multivariate Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Records for 47 235 patients were analyzed, of whom 2980 patients were FA within the study period. Age (<17 years, hazard ratio [HR] 2.92, 95% CI 2.28-3.74; 75-84 years, HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16-1.45; and ≥85 years, HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.45-2.02, relative to age 55-64), male gender (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16-1.37), Charlson comorbidity index (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.19-1.23), and socioeconomic factors (Medifund use, HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.23-1.59; housing subsidy type, HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.77-2.54) were associated with increased risk of FA. Primary malignancies associated with FA included brain and spine (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.67-3.75), head and neck cancers (tongue, HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.27-3.31; hypopharynx, HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.56-4.74), lung (trachea and lung, HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.13-2.18; pleural, HR 3.69, 95% CI 2.12-6.34), upper gastrointestinal (stomach, HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.26-2.74; esophagus, HR 4.13, 95% CI 2.78-6.13), hepato-pancreato-biliary (liver, HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.01-2.00, pancreas, HR 2.48, 95% CI 1.72-3.59), and certain hematological malignancies (diffuse non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, HR1.59, 95% CI 1.08-2.33, lymphoid leukemia, HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.21-2.86). Brain (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.27-2.26), lung (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.71), liver (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.14-1.89), and bone (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.76) metastases were also associated with FA. CONCLUSION: There are cancer-specific factors contributing to ED frequent attendance. Additional resources should be allocated to support high-risk groups and prevent unnecessary ED use.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 teacher head, 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".