MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predictors of High-cost Patients With Noninfectious Inflammatory Eye Diseases

2019· article· en· W2979631455 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Winnie W. Nelson, J. Bradford Rice, Alan G. White, Michaela Johnson, Julie Reiff, Antonio Flavio Lima, Laura Bartels-Peculis, Gosia Ciepielewska, Thomas A. Albini

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Therapeutics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsMedicineDermatologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Noninfectious inflammatory eye diseases (NIIEDs), such as uveitis, is a general term used to describe a complex mix of acute, chronic, allergic, and inflammatory disorders. Prior literature has established that, in addition to severe clinical burden, NIIEDs is associated with significant economic burden for US payers; however, no literature provides a current estimate of the economic burden associated with patients with high-cost NIIEDs. This study aimed to better understand the cost and resource use distribution and predictors of patients with high-cost NIIEDs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study selected adult patients with NIIEDs from a large US administrative claims database between 2006 and 2015. Among the included patients, total all-cause health care costs were calculated for a randomly selected 12-month period. Patients in the top 20% of total all-cause health care costs were identified as high-cost patients; the remaining patients were identified as lower-cost patients. Patient demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, cost, and health care resource utilization (HRU) were compared. Logistic regression models were used to determine characteristics associated with high-cost patients. FINDINGS: Patients with NIIEDs (n = 14,879) were categorized into 2976 high-cost and 11,903 lower-cost patients. High-cost patients with NIIEDs were significantly more likely to experience blindness, cataract, cystoid macular degeneration, retinal detachment, and visual disturbances during the follow-up period than the lower-cost patients (all P < 0.05). The high-cost patients accounted for ~77% of the total all-cause health care spend. High-cost patients incurred an average annual total health care cost of $59,873, and the top 1 percentile incurred $349,967 during the follow-up period. Hospitalization was a key cost driver among the high-cost patients, accounting for 50% of the total cost among the top 1 percentile of patients. High-cost patients were more likely to have specific autoimmune diseases, inpatient admission, and use of biologic and immunosuppressant agents. IMPLICATIONS: A small segment of patients with NIIEDs consumed most resources. This study identified several predictors based on patient characteristics and HRU that may help inform the profile of patients with NIIEDs with the highest health care needs. As such, patients with a given profile can be selected for targeted interventions by clinicians to potentially help improve quality of care and to reduce costs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical TherapeuticsSame topicOcular Diseases and Behçet’s SyndromeFrench-language works237,207