Medical surveillance unit: patient characteristics, outcome, and quality of care in Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Intermediate care units provide a high level of care to complex patients and are becoming increasingly popular in North America. Despite the growing popularity of Intermediate care units, very little is known about them. This study explored a typical Intermediate care unit, identifying patient characteristics including demographics, comorbidities, length of stay, as well as primary and secondary diagnosis and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients chart were reviewed, of which, 102 were male, and 89 patients were younger than 65 years old. Diabetes, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were common among patients with a prevalence of 33.5%, 56%, and 32.5%, respectively. Alcohol use disorder, asthma, liver disease and IV drug abuse were much more common in patients younger than 65 years. The average length of stay was 5.31 days regardless of age. Almost two-thirds of the patients in the Intermediate care unit were admitted directly from the emergency room. The mortality rate among the patients studied was 9.5%. The most common admitting diagnosis was respiratory diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or Pneumonia (38.0%), followed by cardiac disorders which were predominantly arrhythmias and congestive heart failure (27.0%).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".