MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404079601 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.3499

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Male and Female Patients Following Hospitalization for Heart Failure

2024· article· en· W4404079601 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tauben Averbuch, Shun Fu Lee, Brandon Zagorski, Ambarish Pandey, Mark C. Petrie, Tor Biering‐Sørensen, Feng Xie, Harriette G.C. Van Spall

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesImpactUniversity of CalgaryInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareMcMaster UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureIntensive care medicineTerm (time)Health careEmergency medicineInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalization, and sex differences in care have been described. We assessed sex-specific clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization following hospitalization for HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was an exploratory analysis of patients hospitalized for HF across 10 Canadian hospitals in the Patient-Centered Care Transitions in HF (PACT-HF) cluster-randomized trial. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included all-cause readmissions, HF readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and healthcare resource utilization. Outcomes were obtained via linkages with administrative datasets. Among 4441 patients discharged alive, 50.7% were female. By 5 years, 63.6% and 65.5% of male and female patients, respectively, had died (p = 0.19); 85.4% and 84.4%, respectively, were readmitted (p = 0.35); and 72.2% and 70.9%, respectively, received ED care without hospitalization (p = 0.34). There were no sex differences in mean [SD] number of all-cause readmissions (males, 2.8 [7.8] and females, 3.0 [8.4], p = 0.54), HF readmissions (males, 0.9 [3.6] and females, 0.9 [4.5], p = 0.80), or ED visits (males, 1.8 [11.3] and females, 1.5 [6.0], p = 0.24) per person. There were no sex differences in mean [SD] annual direct healthcare cost per patient (males, $80 334 [116 762] versus females, $81 010 [112 625], p = 0.90), but males received more specialist, multidisciplinary HF clinic, haemodialysis, and day surgical care, and females received more home visits, continuing/convalescent care, and long-term care. Annualized clinical events were highest in first year following index discharge in both males and females. CONCLUSIONS: Among people discharged alive after hospitalization for HF, there were no sex differences in total and annual deaths, readmissions, and ED visits, or in total direct healthcare costs. Despite similar risk profiles, males received relatively more specialist care and day surgical procedures, and females received more supportive care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02112227.

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)0.003
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207