MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196522926 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2021.00108

Myocardial Infarction Care Among The Elderly: Declining Treatment With Increasing Age In Two Countries

2021· article· en· W3196522926 on OpenAlexaff
John Hsu, Tor Iversen, Mary Price, Tron Anders Moger, Delaney Tevis, Terje P. Hagen, William H. Dow

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchInstitute of Health Economics
FundersNational Institute on AgingPeder Sather Center for Advanced StudyCenter for Advanced Study, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of Southern California
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionPsychological interventionPer capitaEquity (law)Emergency medicineEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The elderly account for the majority of medical spending in many countries, raising concerns about potentially unnecessary spending, especially during the final months of life. Using a well-defined starting point (hospitalization for an initial acute myocardial infarction) with evidence-based postevent treatments, we examined age trends in treatments in the US and Norway, two countries with high levels of per capita medical spending. After accounting for comorbidities, we found marked decreases within both countries in the use of invasive treatments with age (for example, less use of percutaneous coronary interventions and surgery) and the use of relatively inexpensive medications (for example, less use of anticholesterol [statin] drugs for which generic versions are widely available). The treatment decreases with age were larger in Norway compared with those in the US. The less frequent treatment of the oldest of the old, without even use of basic medications, suggests potential age-related bias and a disconnect with the evidence on treatment value. Hospital organization and payment in both countries should incentivize greater equity in treatment use across ages.

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)0.007
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 score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth AffairsSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207