The effect of public reporting of acute myocardial infarction on the choice of hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is to investigate the effect of public reporting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) care on the people's choice of hospitals. A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online questionnaire. The survey questions include the awareness and usage of public reporting, and the impact of the public reporting on the choice of hospitals. The difference in responses before and after acquiring information about public reporting was compared using multinomial logistic regression. Following a thorough validity check, 740 respondents are included in the final survey data set. The average age of respondents was 38.7 years (SD: 11.8), with 75.3% being female. Age distribution was as follows: 26.3% in their 20s, 23.5% in their 30s, 30.0% in their 40s, and 20.2% in their 50s. Most participants (73.7%) lived in metropolitan areas, and 75.1% had a university degree or higher. Before providing information about public reporting of AMI care, 62.8% of respondents selected 'nearby hospitals' as the best option for AMI patients, followed by 'famous hospitals', 'usual hospital', and 'hospitals with good rates'. Non-health-related occupation shows significantly changed results of hospital choice between before and after obtaining public reporting information (p < 0.001). Publicly available hospital quality ratings can influence people's choice of hospital and increase the risk of selecting a hospital with a good rating than the nearest hospital which is recommended for AMI patients. Policy-makers need to stress the importance of choosing the nearest hospital when AMI symptoms occur in addition to hospital ratings in the public reporting.
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 | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".