Healthcare Disparities Among Homeless Patients Hospitalized With Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOALS: Examine outcomes among homeless patients admitted with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, including all-cause mortality and endoscopic intervention rates. BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations among homeless individuals have increased steadily since at least 2007 but little is known about GI outcomes in these patients. STUDY: The 2010-2014 Healthcare Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases from New York and Florida were used to identify adults admitted with a primary diagnosis of acute upper or lower GI bleed. Homeless patients were 1:3 matched with nonhomeless patients using a propensity-score greedy-matched algorithm. The primary outcome (all-cause in-hospital mortality) and secondary outcomes (30-day readmission rates, endoscopy utilization, length of stay, and total hospitalization costs) were compared. RESULTS: We matched 4074 homeless patients with 12,222 nonhomeless patients. Most hospitalizations for homeless individuals were concentrated in 113 (26.4%) of 428 hospitals. Homeless adults were more likely to be younger, male, African American or Hispanic, and on Medicaid. They experienced significantly higher odds of all-cause inpatient mortality compared with nonhomeless patients admitted with GI bleeding (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.11-1.69). Endoscopy utilization rates were also lower for both upper (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.71) and lower (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.85) GI bleeding, though upper endoscopy rates within the first 24 hours were comparable (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00-1.23). Total hospitalization costs were lower ($9,715 vs. $12,173, P <0.001) while 30-day all-cause readmission rates were significantly higher in the homeless group (14.9% vs. 18.4%, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Homeless patients hospitalized for GI bleeding face disparities, including higher mortality rates and lower endoscopy utilization.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".