MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379799708 · doi:10.3390/epidemiologia4020019

Restrictions on Hospital Referrals from Long-Term Care Homes in Madrid and COVID-19 Mortality from March to June 2020: A Systematic Review of Studies Conducted in Spain

2023· review· en· W4379799708 on OpenAlexaff
Marı́a Victoria Zunzunegui, François Béland, Fernando García López

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiologia · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTriageReferralCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Government (linguistics)DirectivePublic healthFamily medicineGerontologyEmergency medicineDiseaseNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In March 2020, a ministerial directive issued by the Government of the Community of Madrid (CoM) in Spain included disability-based exclusion criteria and recommendations against hospital referral of patients with respiratory conditions living in long-term care homes (LTCHs). Our objective was to assess whether the hospitalization mortality ratio (HMR) is greater than unity, as would be expected had the more severe COVID-19 cases been hospitalized. Thirteen research publications were identified in this systematic review of mortality by place of death of COVID-19-diagnosed LTCH residents in Spain. In the two CoM studies, the HMRs were 0.9 (95%CI 0.8;1.1) and 0.7 (95%CI 0.5;0.9), respectively. Outside of the CoM, in 9 out of 11 studies, the reported HMRs were between 1.7 and 5, with lower 95% CI limits over one. Evaluation of the disability-based triage of LTCH residents during March-April 2020 in public hospitals in the CoM should be conducted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.341
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiologiaSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207