MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Association of Post-ERCP Complications with Hospital Admission Period

2018· article· en· W2920961176 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Faiz Afridi, Laura Rotundo, Mirela Feurdean, Thayer Nasereddin, Neel Patel, Sushil Ahlawat

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)PerforationBleedEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyComplicationPopulationGeneral surgeryAcute cholecystitisSurgeryPediatricsCholecystectomyPancreatitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Numerous studies have been performed to evaluate the hypothesis that patient outcomes are worse during the beginning of the academic year for trainees in July. However, no study has assessed for differences in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography [ERCP] outcomes based on admission quarter. We studied differences in post-ERCP complication rates of gastrointestinal [GI] bleed, perforation, cholecystitis and mortality based on which quarter of the year the patient was admitted. We hypothesized that complications following ERCPs would be greatest in the third quarter, corresponding to the beginning of the academic year for trainees. Methods: We used the National Inpatient Sample databases from the years 2008 to 2012 to identify patients that underwent ERCP using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification codes. Data points that did not contain the admission month were excluded from the study. January, February, and March were re-coded as first quarter. April, May, and June were re-coded as second quarter. July, August, and September were re-coded as third quarter. Finally, October, November, and December were re-coded as fourth quarter. Patients who experienced GI bleed, perforation, cholecystitis or mortality following ERCP were then identified. ANOVA analysis was performed in STATA to calculate differences in complication rates between quarters of the year. Results: 274,807 ERCP cases were included in our study population which represented a 20% sample of the United States. Cholecystitis rates were highest in the third quarter, 0.35%, versus 0.32%, 0.31%, and 0.32% in the first, second, and fourth quarters, respectively (p-value 0.118). Mortality rates and infection rates were highest in the fourth quarter, (1.49% p-value<0.001; 10.77% p-value<0.001, respectively), when compared to the rest of the year. No difference was seen in rates of GI bleed and perforation. Patients admitted in the third quarter were older (59.6 years old, p-value<0.001), had a longer length of stay (6.6 days, p-value 0.003), and had a higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Score (2.2, p-value<0.001) when compared to the rest of the year. Conclusion: Although post-ERCP cholecystitis rates were highest in the third quarter, other complications, including mortality, did not have any association with the start of the academic year for new trainees. Interestingly, patients admitted in the third quarter were older and had a higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Score.2835_A Figure 1. Multivariable regression model of post-ERCP GI bleed, perforation, cholecystitis and mortality rates based on admission quarter2835_B Figure 2. Comparison of complication rates by admission quarter using one-way ANOVA

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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 venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→