Emergency department utilization by persons with rheumatoid arthritis: a population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some emergency department (ED) visits by persons with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may be avoidable. This study aims to describe ED use by persons with RA in Alberta, Canada over a 10-year period. Using linked population-based administrative datasets, the annual frequency of ED visits, timing of visits, acuity at presentation assessed (Canadian Triage Acuity Scale (CTAS)), return visits within 72 h, and final disposition were assessed. Most responsible diagnoses assessed by the ED provider were categorized. Between 2008 and 2017, a total of 48,633 persons with RA had 416,964 unique ED visits. There was a 41% relative increase in visits over the study period and within a fiscal year 37% of persons with RA on average attended an ED. Half of the visits were assessed as CTAS 4 'Less Urgent' (31%) and CTAS 5 'Non-Urgent' (19%). No specific diagnosis could be assigned in 36% of visits and RA was listed as the most responsible diagnosis in 2.5% of all visits. Hospital admissions, occurring on average for 14% of ED visits, increased by 15% over the 10 years, and were rare for CTAS 4 (6.4%) and CTAS 5 (1.4%) presentations. Male patients (difference to female 1.2%, 95%CI 0.6, 1.7) and urban patients (difference to rural 8.4%, 95%CI 7.7, 9.2) were more frequently admitted to hospital. Persons with RA have increased ED utilization over time, with a significant volume of less urgent and non-urgent visits. Opportunities for appropriate ambulatory care provision to reduce acute care use should be identified.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".