Shorter hospital stays for breast cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article examines trends in and factors influencing the length of stay for female breast cancer patients who were hospitalized between 1981 and 2000. DATA SOURCES: The hospital data are from the Hospital Morbidity Database and the Health Person-oriented Information Database, both maintained by Statistics Canada. Data on new cases of breast cancer are from the Canadian Cancer Registry and the National Cancer Incidence Reporting System. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Descriptive analyses present length of stayfor all hospital admissions with a primary diagnosis of breast cancer, by four-year period and by the patient's age, cancer stage, comorbid conditions and surgical procedures. Logistic regression is used to examine associations between these factors and length of stay. MAIN RESULTS: Since the early 1980s, the average length of stay in hospital for female breast cancer has fallen from 15.1 to 4.5 days. Declines occurred regardless of age group, cancer stage, procedure and comorbid conditions. Average stays first began to fall for less serious cases, but were eventually apparent for even the most serious.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".