Regional Differences in Medical Costs of Chronic Kidney Disease in the South Korean Population: Marginalized Two-Part Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are regional gaps in the access to medical services for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), and it is necessary to reduce those gaps, including the gaps involving medical costs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze regional differences in the medical costs associated with CKD in the South Korean population. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study included participants randomly sampled from the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort of South Korea. To select those who were newly diagnosed with CKD, we excluded those who were diagnosed in 2002-2003 and 2018-2019. A total of 5903 patients with CKD were finally included. We used a marginalized two-part longitudinal model to assess total medical costs. RESULTS: Our cohort included 4775 (59.9%) men and 3191 (40.1%) women. Of these, 971 (12.2%) and 6995 (87.8%) lived in medically vulnerable and nonvulnerable regions, respectively. The postdiagnosis costs showed a significant difference between the regions (estimate: -0.0152, 95% confidence limit: -0.0171 to -0.0133). The difference in medical expenses between the vulnerable and nonvulnerable regions showed an increase each year after the diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CKD living in medically vulnerable regions are likely to have higher postdiagnostic medical expenses compared to those living in regions that are not medically vulnerable. Efforts to improve early diagnosis of CKD are needed. Relevant policies should be drafted to decrease the medical costs of patients with CKD disease living in medically deprived areas.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".