Status of Emergency Department Seventy-Two Hour Return Visits Among Homeless Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aim to externally validate the status of emergency department (ED) appropriate utilization and 72-h ED returns among homeless patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center observational study. Patients were divided into two groups (homeless versus non-homeless). Patients' general characteristics, clinical variables, ED appropriate utilization, and ED return disposition deviations were compared and analyzed separately. RESULTS: Study enrolled a total of 63,990 ED visits. Homeless patients comprised 9.3% (5,926) of visits. Higher ED 72-h returns occurred among homeless patients in comparison to the non-homeless patients (17% versus 5%, P < 0.001). Rate of significant ED disposition deviations (e.g., admission, triage to operation room, or death) on return visits were lower in homeless patients when compared to non-homeless patient populations (15% versus 23%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Though ED return rate was higher among homeless patients, return visit case management seems appropriate, indicating that 72-h ED returns might not be an optimal healthcare quality measurement for homeless patients.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".