Demographic trends of patients undergoing ophthalmic surgery in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated the demographic trends of patients undergoing ophthalmic surgeries based on geographic region, priority level, and sex. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This population-based retrospective cohort study used the Ontario Health Wait Times Information System (WTIS) database from 2010 to 2021. The WTIS contains non-emergent surgical case volume and wait time data for 14 different regions, three priority levels (high, medium and low) and six ophthalmic subspecialty procedures. RESULTS: Over the study period, on average 83 783 women and 65 555 men underwent ophthalmic surgery annually in Ontario. Overall, women waited an aggregate mean of 4.9 days longer than men to undergo surgery, and this disparity persisted across all geographic and priority stratifications. The average age at the time of surgery has been increasing slowly at a rate of 0.02 years/year (95% CI 0.00 to 0.05), with women being 0.6 years older than men overall. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that women have consistently longer wait times than men. The results of this study may be a sign of systemic sex-based differences that could be affecting women who need to be further explored for health equity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it