MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048654576 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111405

Preventing hospital readmission through better medication continuity after hospital discharge

2020· article· en· W3048654576 on OpenAlexaff
Dylan Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ evidence-based medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiscontinuationTransitional carePsychological interventionConfusionHospital dischargeHealth careHospital readmissionHospital careMedication ReconciliationPatient dischargeEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyMEDLINEFamily medicineNursingPsychiatryPharmacyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transition from hospital-to-home is a common source of medication-related problems among older adults, some of which lead to hospital readmission. The prevalence of these problems is amplified by an ageing population and an increasing number of unplanned hospital admissions. Clinicians who integrate bundles of simple interventions, such as medication reconciliation, self-management education and telephone follow-up for older patients during discharge are likely to see reductions in hospital readmissions. Medication-related problems, such as reconciliation errors, patient confusion, inappropriate continuation or discontinuation and inadequate monitoring, are common during the transition from hospital-to-home, especially in older populations.1–3 These problems are known to decrease quality of life and increase hospital readmission and healthcare utilisation.4 5 Improving the quality of care transitions by targeting medication-related problems to reduce …

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Observational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ evidence-based medicineSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207