A Topological Data Analysis of Un met Health Care Needs Among Injured Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite universal health care in Canada, research has shown persistent disparities in access to care for various sociodemographic groups. Most research has focused on access to primary care for particular sociodemographic groups, with much less attention paid to the effect of injury on unmet healthcare needs. The current study aimed to address this knowledge gap by evaluating and comparing unmet healthcare needs between injured patients and non-injured individuals. The primary study objective was to segment the population and explore differences in unmet healthcare needs among patient clusters. U sing the Canadian Community Health Survey, a study cohort of injured and non-injured subjects was created, restricted to those who responded to questions regarding unmet healthcare needs. Determinants of access related to predisposing characteristics (age, sex, marital status, immigration status, race), enabling characteristics (income, education, having a healthcare provider), and need-based factors (mental health comorbidities) were included as features. Topological Data Analysis (TDA) was used to identify the complex interactions between features, with respect to the underlying shape of the dataset, to generate patient clusters with respect to unmet health care needs. Cluster boundaries were defined using Louvain community detection. Statistical differences between features were tested across clusters. The study included 2,777,268 injured patients and 12,031,031 non-injured patients. TDA discovered three distinct phenotypes within the injured patient population, each exhibiting unique patterns of unmet healthcare needs. These clusters showed differences across the maj ority of features, indicating that this segmentation method effectively distinguished between injured patients with varying levels of unmet healthcare needs. This study is the first national analysis of injured Canadians reporting unmet healthcare needs. Our results indicate substantial inequalities in healthcare services for injured patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".