Young adults with a 22q11.2 microdeletion and the cost of aging with complexity in a population-based context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Information about the impact on the adult health care system is limited for complex rare pediatric diseases, despite their increasing collective prevalence that has paralleled advances in clinical care of children. Within a population-based health care context, we examined costs and multimorbidity in adults with an exemplar of contemporary genetic diagnostics. METHODS: We estimated direct health care costs over an 18-year period for adults with molecularly confirmed 22q11.2 microdeletion (cases) and matched controls (total 60,459 person-years of data) by linking the case cohort to health administrative data for the Ontario population (∼15 million people). We used linear regression to compare the relative ratio (RR) of costs and to identify baseline predictors of higher costs. RESULTS: Total adult (age ≥ 18) health care costs were significantly higher for cases compared with population-based (RR 8.5, 95% CI 6.5-11.1) controls, and involved all health care sectors. At study end, when median age was <30 years, case costs were comparable to population-based individuals aged 72 years, likelihood of being within the top 1st percentile of health care costs for the entire (any age) population was significantly greater for cases than controls (odds ratio [OR], for adults 17.90, 95% CI 7.43-43.14), and just 8 (2.19%) cases had a multimorbidity score of zero (vs 1483 (40.63%) controls). The 22q11.2 microdeletion was a significant predictor of higher overall health care costs after adjustment for baseline variables (RR 6.9, 95% CI 4.6-10.5). CONCLUSION: The findings support the possible extension of integrative models of complex care used in pediatrics to adult medicine and the potential value of genetic diagnostics in adult clinical medicine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".