MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388595528 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad655.438

The current and future total health care costs of atrial fibrillation

2023· article· en· W4388595528 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roopinder K. Sandhu, Huma Qureshi, Douglas C. Dover, M N Hawkins, Padma Kaul

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatoryAtrial fibrillationAmbulatory careHealth careEmergency medicinePopulationBenchmarkingInpatient careResource useCohortEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice, yet detailed information on the cost burden remains sparse. These data are essential for determining resource allocation, benchmarking care, identifying areas for more efficient healthcare delivery and to measure effects of alternative treatment strategies. Purpose We sought to examine costs for inpatient, ambulatory, physician, and drugs for AF and model future costs. Methods In this retrospective population-based cohort study, we used linked administrative databases to identify all adult patients presenting to any healthcare setting with nonvalvular AF (NVAF) as the most responsible diagnosis in our city, Canada, from fiscal years 2010-2018. Costs for inpatient, ambulatory, physician, and drugs were estimated, in 2019 Canadian dollars, by using Statistics Canada Consumer Price Index. A two-part cost model with logit and gamma generalized linear model was developed to predict costs from 2019 to 2030. Results There were 48,854 NVAF patients. The median age was 70 [59.0,80.0] years, 55% were male, and median CHADS-Vasc score = 3.0 [1.0,4.0]. NVAF-related costs were $1.4 billion dollars (inpatient $1.1 billion, ambulatory $107.0 million, physician $59.6 million, drugs $140.1 million) and represented 36.8% of total costs (Figure 1). The per patient cost of NVAF was $30.1 thousand. Over the study period, costs increased by 2.2% for inpatient, 40.5% for ambulatory, 67.1% for physician, and 214.2% for drugs. By 2030, we estimate there will be 54,523 NVAF patients. NVAF-related costs from 2019 to 2030 are estimated to be $3.6 billion (inpatient $2.5 billion, ambulatory $310.5.0 million, physician $197.5 million, drugs $610.4 million) and will represent 32.1% of total costs (Figure 1). Conclusions Costs for AF are on the rise and the distribution of costs are changing. Although inpatient costs represent the highest proportion of total AF costs, they are projected to decrease while costs due to ambulatory, physician and drug costs are increasing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.266
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→