The relationship between hospital adoption and use of high technology medical imaging and in-patient mortality and length of stay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between hospital adoption and use of computed tomography (CT) scanners, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines and in-patient mortality and length of stay. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This study used panel data (2007-2010) from 124 hospital corporations operating in Ontario, Canada. Imaging use focused on medical patients accounting for 25 percent of hospital discharges. Main outcomes were in-hospital mortality rates and average length of stay. A model for each outcome-technology combination was built, and controlled for hospital structural characteristics, market factors and patient characteristics. FINDINGS: In 2010, 36 and 59 percent of hospitals had adopted MRI machines and CT scanners, respectively. Approximately 23.5 percent of patients received CT scans and 3.5 percent received MRI scans during the study period. Adoption of these technologies was associated with reductions of up to 1.1 percent in mortality rates and up to 4.5 percent in length of stay. The imaging use-mortality relationship was non-linear and varied by technology penetration within hospitals. For CT, imaging use reduced mortality until use reached 19 percent in hospitals with one scanner and 28 percent in hospitals with 2+ scanners. For MRI, imaging use was largely associated with decreased mortality. The use of CT scanners also increased length of stay linearly regardless of technology penetration (4.6 percent for every 10 percent increase in use). Adoption and use of MRI was not associated with length of stay. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: These results suggest that there may be some unnecessary use of imaging, particularly in small hospitals where imaging is contracted out. In larger hospitals, the results highlight the need to further investigate the use of imaging beyond certain thresholds. Independent of the rate of imaging use, the results also indicate that the presence of CT and MRI devices within a hospital benefits quality and efficiency. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: To the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the combined effect of adoption and use of medical imaging on outcomes specific to CT scanners and MRI machines in the context of hospital in-patient care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".