P3518Men with heart failure have higher readmission rates: a closer review of sex and gender based analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There has been increased attention on reducing hospital readmission rates. However, little is known about any difference in readmission rates in heart failure by sex, although evidence exists demonstrating differences in the etiology of heart failure. As a result, strategies to optimize readmission reduction programs and care strategies for women and men remain unclear. Purpose (1) To identify studies examining readmission rates according to sex, and (2) to provide a qualitative overview of possible considerations for the impact of sex or gender. Methods A scoping protocol was developed using the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Our search strategy was reviewed according to the peer-review of electronic search strategy (PRESS) checklist. Full text articles published between 2002 and 2017 and drawn from multiple databases (i.e. MEDLINE, EMBASE), grey literature (i.e. National Technical Information, Duck Duck Go), and experts were consulted for additional articles. Screening criteria were established a priori. Once an acceptable inter-rater agreement was established at 80% by two independent reviewers, articles were screened for potential eligibility. A descriptive analytical method was employed to chart primary research articles. Articles were considered relevant if the cohort consisted of adult heart failure patients who were readmitted after an index hospitalization and a sex/gender-based analysis was performed. Results The literature search yielded 5887 articles, of which 746 underwent full text assessment for eligibility. Of 164 eligible articles, 34 studies addressed the primary outcome, 103 studies considered sex differences as a secondary outcome and 25 studies included disaggregated data for sex but no subsequent interaction was reported. Good inter-rater agreement was reached: 83% for title and abstract screening; 88% for full text review; kappa: 0.69 (95% CI: 0.526–0.851). Twelve of 34 studies included for the primary outcome reported higher readmission rates for men compared to five studies reporting higher readmission rates for women. However, there were differential readmission rates that were dependent on duration of follow-up. Women were more likely to experience higher readmission rates than men when time to event was less than one year. Readmission rates for men were higher when follow-up was longer than one year. Conclusion Sex differences in readmission rates were dependent on follow up time. Most studies used composite outcomes and had short times to event, which may mask underlying effects of sex on readmission. Acknowledgement/Funding Ontario SPOR Support Unit
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 | 0.013 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".