A multicenter prospective cohort study evaluating 30-day outcomes after an emergency department visit for hyperglycemia in Canadian adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Previous retrospective studies have demonstrated that patients with sub-optimally controlled diabetes have higher healthcare resource utilization in emergency department (ED) management of hyperglycemia compared to those with good glycemic control. This study's objective was to prospectively describe 30-day outcomes including return visits and hospitalizations after an initial ED visit for hyperglycemia. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of adults ≥ 18 years at four Ontario academic EDs diagnosed with hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. The primary outcome was an unplanned repeat ED visit for hyperglycemia within 30 days of index visit. We conducted telephone follow-up at 14 and 30 days to determine additional outcomes. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: There were 657 ED visits for hyperglycemia representing 594 unique patients. Mean (SD) age was 52.0 (18.2) years, 53.2% were male. Within 30 days, 96 (14.7%) had a return ED visit for hyperglycemia, 49 (7.5%) were hospitalized, and 4 (0.6%) died. We were able to contact 383 (58.3%) patients by telephone at 14 days and 275 (41.9%) at 30 days. Of these, 68.3% self-identified as Caucasian/White, while 6.3% were Indigenous. 44.9% reported an annual household income below $50,000. 29.1% of working patients took time off following their index visit. CONCLUSION: This prospective study describes 30-day outcomes and healthcare utilization of ED patients presenting for hyperglycemia. ED clinicians should be aware of the potential for subsequent healthcare utilization and risk for readmission and intervene as appropriate to reduce adverse outcomes in patients with diabetes presenting with hyperglycemia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".