MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214890189 · doi:10.1177/13524585221078497

Emergency department use by persons with MS: A population-based descriptive study with a focus on infection-related visits

2022· article· en· W4214890189 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jonas Graf, Huah Shin Ng, Feng Zhu, Yinshan Zhao, José M.A. Wijnands, Charity Evans, John D. Fisk, Ruth Ann Marrie, Helen Tremlett

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of SaskatchewanNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineMultiple sclerosisEmergency medicinePopulationPediatricsEnvironmental healthImmunologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We described emergency department (ED) visits (all visits and infection-related) by persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) in British Columbia, Canada (1 April 2012 to 31 December 2017). We identified 15,350 MS cases using health administrative data; 73.4% were women, averaging 51.4 years at study entry. Over 4.9 years of follow-up (mean), 56.0% of MS cases visited an ED (mean = 0.6 visits/person/year; total = 37,072 visits). A diagnosis was documented for 25,698 (69.3%) ED visits, and 18.4% (4725/25,698) were infection-related. Inpatient admissions were reported for 20.4% (5238/25,698) of all and 29.2% (1380/4725) of infection-related ED visits. Findings suggest that the ED plays a substantial role in MS healthcare and infection management.

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)0.002
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 score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207