MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048994460 · doi:10.1002/jso.26173

What are the predictors of emergency department utilization and readmission following extremity bone sarcoma resection?

2020· article· en· W3048994460 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth P. Wellings, Eric R. Wagner, Benjamin K. Wilke, Dennis Asante, Lindsey R. Sangaralingham, Peter S. Rose, Steven L. Moran, Matthew T. Houdek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentLogistic regressionSarcomaBone SarcomaEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Treatment for bone sarcomas are large undertakings. Emergency department (ED) visits and unplanned hospital readmissions are a potential target for cost containment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for ED visits and unplanned readmissions following extremity bone sarcoma surgery. METHODS: Data from Optum Labs Data Warehouse, a national administrative claims database, was analyzed to identify patients with extremity bone sarcomas from 2006 to 2017. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with ED visits and readmissions. RESULTS: Of 1390 (743 males, 647 female) adult patients, 137 (12%) visited the ED and 245 (18%) were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. The most common indication for ED visits (n = 63, 45.9%) and readmission (n = 119, 48.5%) were complications of surgery. Length of stay >10 days was associated with ED utilization (OR, 1.83; P = .01) and readmission (OR, 4.47; P < .001). CONCLUSION: One in ten patients will use the ED, and one in five patients will be readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of discharge following extremity bone sarcoma surgery. Length of stay was associated with ED visits and readmission. These patients could be targeted with alternative management strategies in the outpatient setting with early clinical follow-up to minimize readmission.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surgical OncologySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207