MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403834401 · doi:10.1681/asn.20240ccjk4an

Timeliness of Documentation and Costs of Care in Adults Newly Diagnosed with CKD

2024· article· en· W4403834401 on OpenAlexaff
Satabdi Chatterjee, Adrian R. Levy, Sydnie Stackland, Lindsay G.S. Bengtson, B.M.K. Donato

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationMedicineIntensive care medicineFamily medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Among persons with new onset chronic kidney disease (CKD), previous research has found considerable delay between laboratory evidence and documented diagnosis of the condition. However, the consequences of diagnostic delay are not known. Among adults with laboratory evidence (two estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 measured between 3-12 months apart) and a documented diagnosis of CKD (using ICD 9/10 codes), the study described the mean annual costs, among those with a documentation of the diagnosis within six months (“timely”), and greater than six months (“delayed”) of laboratory-based CKD. Methods: A retrospective longitudinal cohort study was conducted using 2009-2020 Optum® Market Clarity electronic health record-linked claims data among adults with an incident diagnosis of CKD. The study computed the mean total annual costs, which included direct medical (inpatient, outpatient, emergency department) costs and pharmacy costs (in 2022 United States Dollars) between cohorts stratified by the timing of CKD diagnosis. Mean annual costs for each component were calculated by dividing the costs incurred during follow up for each patient divided by the number of years of follow-up that the patient contributed, and represented cost per patient per year. Results: A total of 193,539 individuals with incident diagnosis of CKD were included; of them, 55,154 (28.5%) had a timely documented diagnosis of CKD, while 138,385 (71.5%) recorded a delayed documentation. The mean (SD) total annual costs were $46,030 (194,293) among those with timely diagnosis, and $50,151 (463,278) among the delayed cohort. Breaking down those totals, the annual mean medical costs were $37,054 (190,103) among those with timely diagnosis, and $41,007 (461,608) with delayed diagnosis. The mean annual pharmacy costs were $8,977 (31,296) and $9,145 (30,035) in timely diagnosed and delayed cohorts, respectively. Conclusion: In large cohort of US adults with incident CKD, our descriptive analysis found that, less than 30% had a timely documentation, and incurred lower costs than the cohort with delayed documentation. While this could be partially driven by the selection of patients in the timely and delayed groups, our preliminary findings suggest the need for timely documentation of CKD. Funding: Commercial Support - Boehringer Ingelheim

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicChronic Disease Management Strategies→French-language works237,207→