High health care use prior to elective surgery for osteoarthritis is associated with poor postoperative outcomes: A Canadian population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The characterization and influence of preoperative health care use on quality-of-care indicators (e.g., readmissions) has received limited attention in populations with musculoskeletal disorders. The purpose of this study was to characterize preoperative health care use and examine its effect on quality-of-care indicators among patients undergoing elective surgery for osteoarthritis. METHODS: Data on health care use for 124,750 patients with elective surgery for osteoarthritis in Ontario, Canada, from April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2018 were linked across health administrative databases. Using total health care use one-year previous to surgery, patients were grouped from low to very high users. We used Poisson regression models to estimate rate ratios, while examining the relationship between preoperative health care use and quality-of-care indicators (e.g., extended length of stay, complications, and 90-day hospital readmissions). We controlled for covariates (age, sex, neighborhood income, rural/urban residence, comorbidities, and surgical anatomical site). RESULTS: We found a statistically significant trend of increasing worse outcomes by health care use gradients that persisted after controlling for patient demographics and comorbidities. Findings were consistent across surgical anatomical sites. Moreover, very high users have relatively large numbers of visits to non-musculoskeletal specialists. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight that information on patients' preoperative health care use, together with other risk factors (such as comorbidities), could help decision-making when benchmarking or reimbursing hospitals caring for complex patients undergoing surgery for osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".