MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inequalities in Pediatric Fracture Care Timeline Based on Insurance Type

2020· article· en· W3081739131 on OpenAlexaff
Brock T. Kitchen, Samuel S. Ornell, Kush Shah, William Pipkin, Natalie L. Tips, Grant D. Hogue

Bibliographic record

VenueJAAOS Global Research and Reviews · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineSocioeconomic statusMedicineGovernment (linguistics)ReferralFamily medicineDemographicsDemographyEnvironmental healthPopulationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Socioeconomic and insurance status are often linked with limited access to health care. Despite several government-funded projects aimed at curtailing these barriers, pediatric orthopaedic patients continue to experience delays in receiving timely care for fracture treatments. This delay has been well-identified within the orthopaedic literature but, to our knowledge, has never been characterized based on timeline. Thus, the goal of this study is to evaluate the role of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and insurance type on the timeline of pediatric patients to obtain orthopaedic care within our community. METHODS: Pediatric patients presenting to our clinic for the treatment of one of 21 most common fractures were included. Patient demographics and the timeline of patient care were collected by retrospective chart review. RESULTS: Government-funded insurance accounted for 60.6% of the 413 patients. These patients experienced significant (P < 0.001) delays in access to care when compared with commercial insurance patients; the time between injury and referral as well as the overall time from injury to orthopaedic evaluation was 2.8 and twofold greater at 4.4 days and 9.2 days, respectively. A strong correlation was established between income levels and insurance type. DISCUSSION: Pediatric patients with a lower socioeconomic status are more likely to rely on government-funded insurance and experience delays in fracture evaluation.

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)0.001
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 score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAAOS Global Research and ReviewsSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207