MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944702540 · doi:10.1002/hep.30695

The Quality and Outcomes of Care Provided to Patients with Cirrhosis by Advanced Practice Providers

2019· article· en· W2944702540 on OpenAlex
Elliot B. Tapper, Shengchen Hao, Menghan Lin, John N. Mafi, Heather McCurdy, Neehar D. Parikh, Anna S. Lok

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHepatology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesValeant Pharmaceuticals InternationalEisaiMichigan Institute for Clinical and Health ResearchExelixisBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineRifaximinHepatologyHepatic encephalopathyInternal medicineCirrhosisOdds ratioSubspecialtyVaricesLiver diseaseHepatocellular carcinomaGastroenterologyIntensive care medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cirrhosis is morbid and increasingly prevalent, yet the U.S. health care system lacks enough physicians and specialists to adequately manage patients with cirrhosis. Although advanced practice providers (APPs) can expand access to cirrhosis-related care, their impact on the quality of care remains unknown. We sought to determine the effect on care quality and outcomes for patients managed by APPs using a retrospective analysis of a nationally representative American commercial claims database (Optum), which included 389,257 unique adults with cirrhosis. We evaluated a complication of process measures (i.e., rates of hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC] screening, endoscopic varices screening, and use of rifaximin after hospitalization for hepatic encephalopathy) and outcomes (30-day readmissions and survival). Compared with patients without APP care, patients with APP care had higher rates of HCC screening (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.19, 1.27), varices screening (OR 1.20 [1.13, 1.27]), use of rifaximin after a discharge for hepatic encephalopathy (OR 2.09 [1.80, 2.43]), and reduced risk of 30-day readmission (OR 0.68 [0.66, 0.70]). Gastroenterology/hepatology consultation was also associated with improved quality metric performance compared with primary care; however, shared visits between gastroenterologists/hepatologists and APPs were associated with the best performance and lower 30-day readmissions compared with subspecialty consultation without an APP (OR 0.91 [0.87, 0.95]. Multivariate analysis adjusting for comorbidities, liver disease severity, and other factors including gastroenterology/hepatology consultation showed that patients seen by APPs were more likely to receive consistent HCC and varices screening over time, less likely to experience 30-day readmissions, and had lower mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.55, 0.60). Conclusion: APPs, particularly when working with gastroenterologists/hepatologists, are associated with improved quality of care and outcomes for patients with cirrhosis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.405 · 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