Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background There are no standardized reporting systems or assessments specific to residents of retirement homes in North America. As such, little is known about these older adults as a distinct population. We created a new population-level cohort of residents of retirement homes and examined their health service rates relative to other older adult populations. Methods We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada in 2018. The postal codes of all licensed retirement homes (n = 757) were classified and linked to individual-level health system administrative data to derive a cohort of residents of retirement homes. A generalized linear model with a gamma distribution and log link function was used to model rates of emergency department visits, hospitalizations, alternate levels of care (ALC) days, primary care visits, and specialist physician visits. Results Residents of retirement homes comprised two percent of the older adult population in Ontario (n = 54,773; 2.3%). After adjustment for relevant characteristics, residents of retirement homes had 10 times the rate of emergency department visits (Relative Rate [RR] 10.02, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 9.83 to 10.21), 20 times the rate of hospitalizations (RR 20.43, 95% CI 20.08 to 20.78), and 44 times the rate ALC days (RR 43.91, 95% CI 43.28 to 44.54) compared to community-dwelling older adults. Interpretation Residents of retirement homes are a distinct older adult population with high rates of hospital-based care. Our findings contribute to policy debates about the provision of health care in privately operated congregate care settings for older adults.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".