Patient-Reported Symptom Complexity and Acute Care Utilization Among Patients With Cancer: A Population-Based Study Using a Novel Symptom Complexity Algorithm and Observational Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer in Canada are often effectively managed in ambulatory settings; however, patients with unmanaged or complex symptoms may turn to the emergency department (ED) for additional support. These unplanned visits can be costly to the healthcare system and distressing for patients. This study used a novel patient-reported outcomes (PROs)-derived symptom complexity algorithm to understand characteristics of patients who use acute care, which may help clinicians identify patients who would benefit from additional support. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study used population-based linked administrative healthcare data. All patients with cancer in Alberta, Canada, who completed at least one PRO symptom-reporting questionnaire between October 1, 2019, and April 1, 2020, were included. The algorithm used ratings of 9 symptoms to assign a complexity score of low, medium, or high. Multivariable binary logistic regressions were used to evaluate factors associated with a higher likelihood of having an ED visit or hospital admission (HA) within 7 days of completing a PRO questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 29,133 patients in the cohort, 738 had an ED visit and 452 had an HA within 7 days of completing the PRO questionnaire. Patients with high symptom complexity had significantly higher odds of having an ED visit (OR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.59-3.70) or HA (OR, 4.20; 95% CI, 3.36-5.26) compared with low complexity patients, controlling for demographic covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Given that patients with higher symptom complexity scores were more likely to use acute care, clinicians should monitor these more complex patients closely, because they may benefit from additional support or symptom management in ambulatory settings. A symptom complexity algorithm can help clinicians easily identify patients who may require additional support. Using an algorithm to guide care can enhance patient experiences, while reducing use of acute care services and the accompanying cost and burden.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".