MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992527896

Cost weight compression: impact of cost data precision and completeness.

2006· article· en· W2992527896 on OpenAlexaff
Charles K. Botz, Jason M. Sutherland, Jolyn Lawrenson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompleteness (order theory)WorkloadCompression (physics)Cost databaseMedicineStatisticsOperations managementComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringDatabase
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was designed to quantitatively assess the impact of deficiencies in completeness and precision of hospital case cost data on cost weight compression. For the nursing per diem model versus the nursing workload model the average compression was 19.6 percent (for the 25.9 percent of cases that changed cost weight by at least 5 percent). We concluded that the compression of case mix cost weights based on nursing per diem cost or per diem charge models, such as for U.S. diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), may be pervasive and material.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.379
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.379
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.501
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.019 · 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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMedical Coding and Health InformationFrench-language works237,207