MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174892139 · doi:10.2217/cer-2020-0278

Gender, socioeconomic status and emergency department visits among cancer survivors in the USA: a population-based study

2021· article· en· W3174892139 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Abdel‐Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentSocioeconomic statusLogistic regressionDemographyPopulationOdds ratioCohortCohort studyEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To assess patterns of emergency department visits and subsequent hospitalization in relation to gender and socioeconomic status among a cohort of cancer survivors in the USA. Materials & methods: National Health Interview Survey datasets (2011–2017) were reviewed and participants with a history of cancer and complete information about emergency department visits in the past 12 months were included. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess factors associated with emergency department visits and subsequent hospitalization after the most recent emergency department visit. Results: A total of 22,240 cancer survivors were included in the current analysis; of which 16,133 participants (72.5%) who have not visited an emergency department in the past 12 months and 6107 participants (27.5%) who have visited an emergency department in the past 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression analysis suggested the following factors are associated with emergency department visits; younger age (odds ratio [OR] with increasing age: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.98–0.99), female gender (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.00–1.15), African American race (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.13–1.40), unmarried status (OR for married vs unmarried: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.74–0.84), lower yearly earnings (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.20–1.54), poor health status (OR: 7.02; 95% CI: 6.02–8.18) and incomplete health insurance coverage (OR for complete coverage vs incomplete coverage: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.54–0.80). On the other hand, the following factors were associated with subsequent hospitalization: older age (OR: 1.004; 95% CI: 1.000–1.008), male gender (OR for female vs male: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.78–0.94), unmarried status (OR for married vs unmarried status: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.73–0.88), not working (OR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.23–1.68), lower yearly earnings (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.07–1.60), poor health status (OR: 8.43; 95% CI: 6.76–10.51) and lack of health insurance coverage (OR for complete coverage vs incomplete coverage: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.55–0.93). Conclusion: Female cancer survivors were more likely to visit the emergency department, whereas they were less likely to be subsequently hospitalized. Cancer survivors with lower socioeconomic status were more likely to visit emergency departments and to be subsequently hospitalized.

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.285
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness ResearchSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207