MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008027813 · doi:10.1177/1178632920903731

Predictors of Home Care Costs Among Persons With Dementia, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, and Multiple Sclerosis in Ontario

2020· article· en· W3008027813 on OpenAlexaffabout
Clare Cheng, John P. Hirdes, George Heckman, Jeff Poss

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Services Insights · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute for AgingUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisMedicineDementiaPopulationHealth careDiseaseGerontologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Home care is an important service for persons with neurological conditions, but little is known about factors affecting health care costs in this setting. Using administrative data collected with the Resident Assessment Instrument for Home Care (RAI-HC), this study identified factors associated with home care costs for recipients of home care services with Alzheimer disease or related dementias, multiple sclerosis, and/or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. As part of this study, the effectiveness of the Resource Utilization Groups for Home Care (RUG-III/HC), a case-mix classification system developed for the RAI-HC, in predicting care costs for this population, was also tested. Clinical characteristics indicative of greater disease severity had high levels of significance in predicting home care costs. In particular, the RUG-III/HC was highly predictive of home care costs for 3 neurological conditions, indicating the validity of this case-mix system for this population. With the increasing prevalence of neurological conditions and demand for home care services, future studies should continue to focus on identifying specific predictors care costs for those with neurological conditions in this care setting.

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)0.002
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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Services InsightsSame topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFrench-language works237,207