MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403612071 · doi:10.1186/s13054-024-05108-6

High-cost users after sepsis: a population-based observational cohort study

2024· article· en· W4403612071 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kali Barrett, Fatima Sheikh, Victoria Chechulina, Hannah Chung, Peter Dodek, Laura C. Rosella, Kednapa Thavorn, Damon C. Scales

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of OttawaTrillium Health CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalInstitute for Work & HealthSt. Paul's HospitalMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineSepsisConfidence intervalPropensity score matchingCohortCohort studyPopulationEmergency medicineObservational studyPediatricsInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: High-cost users (HCU) represent important targets for health policy interventions. Sepsis is a life-threatening syndrome that is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and economic costs to the healthcare system. We sought to estimate the effect of sepsis on being a subsequent HCU. METHODS: Using linked health-administrative databases, we conducted a population-based, propensity score-weighted cohort study of adults who survived a hospitalization in Ontario, Canada between January 2016 and December 2017. Sepsis was identified using a validated algorithm. The primary outcome was being a persistent HCU after hospital discharge (in the top 5% or 1% of total health care spending for 90 consecutive days), and the proportion of follow-up time since discharge as a HCU. RESULTS: We identified 927,057 hospitalized individuals, of whom 79,065 had sepsis. Individuals who had sepsis were more likely to be a top 5% HCU for 90 consecutive days at any time after discharge compared to those without sepsis (OR 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.04-2.46) and spent on average 42.3% of their follow up time as a top 5% HCU compared to 28.9% of time among those without sepsis (RR 1.46; 95% CI 1.45-1.48). Individuals with sepsis were more likely to be a top 1% HCU for 90 consecutive days compared to those without sepsis (10% versus 5.1%, OR 2.05 [95% CI 1.99-2.11]), and spent more time as a top 1% HCU (18.5% of time versus 10.8% of time, RR 1.68 [95% CI 1.65-1.70]). CONCLUSIONS: The sequelae of sepsis result in higher healthcare costs with important economic implications. After discharge, individuals who experienced sepsis are more likely to be a HCU and spend more time as a HCU compared to individuals who did not experience sepsis during hospitalization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207