Socioeconomic status does not influence the presentation of patients with inguinal hernia at an urban Canadian teaching hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Socioeconomic status (SES) has been shown to influence the outcomes of surgical pathologies in areas with unequal access to health care. The purpose of this study was to measure the effect of SES on the urgency for inguinal hernia repair in an area with purported equitable access to health care in the context of a universal health care system. Methods: We included all adult patients who underwent surgical management of an inguinal hernia between 2012 and 2016 at 2 urban academic centres. We measured the SES using the Vancouver Area Neighbourhood Deprivation Index (VANDIX) score. Results: We included 2336 patients: 98 emergency surgery and 294 elective surgery cases. We matched patients without replacement on age, sex and American Society of Anesthesiology score, using optimized propensity score matching at a ratio of 1 case to 3 controls. We found no significant correlation between lower SES and emergency surgical management (p = 0.122). Secondary analysis assessed the impact of SES on morbidity and length of stay. We found no significant difference in the rate of complications, length of stay and recurrence by SES category. Patients from lower SES brackets had increased odds for readmission (odds ratio 1.979; 95% confidence interval 1.111–4.318). Conclusion: We found no correlation between a low SES and the need for emergency inguinal hernia repair, but found an increased rate of readmission in patients from lower SES brackets. This finding should be further scrutinized through a deeper dive into the barriers to access to nonacute care settings, such as home care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".