Sex Differences in Healthcare Utilization in Persons Living with Dementia Between 2000 and 2017: A Population-Based Study in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Describe sex differences in healthcare utilization and mortality in persons with new dementia in Quebec, Canada. Methods: We conducted a repeated cohort study from 2000 to 2017 using health administrative databases. Community-dwelling persons aged 65+ with a new diagnosis of dementia were included. We measured 23 indicators of healthcare use across five care settings: ambulatory care, pharmacological care, acute hospital care, long-term care, and mortality. Clinically meaningful sex differences in age-standardized rates were determined graphically through expert consultations. Results: Women with dementia had higher rates of ambulatory care and pharmacological care, while men with dementia had higher acute hospital care, admission to long-term care, and mortality. There was no meaningful difference in visits to cognition specialists, antipsychotic prescriptions, and hospital death. Discussion: Men and women with dementia demonstrate differences in healthcare utilization and mortality. Addressing these differences will inform decision-makers, care providers and researchers and guide more equitable policy and interventions in dementia care.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".