Potentially avoidable emergency department visits among patients with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Potentially avoidable emergency department (ED) visits are considered an indicator of the quality of cancer care.Objective: To investigate the causes of ED visits of patients with advanced cancer. Methods:We included in this analysis the visits to the ED of patients with advanced cancer in a tertiary cancer center in Mexico City, registered the reasons for their visit, and classified them as potentially avoidable or not by three independent observers. Results:Seventy-seven patients were included, and 69% had at least one visit to the ED.Fifty-seven percent of visits were classified as potentially avoidable.The most common causes of visiting the ED were: pain, gastrointestinal disorders and ascites.Patients with gastrointestinal and genitourinary tumours had a higher frequency of unavoidable ED visits compared to patients with other tumours (43.3% versus 20.7%, p 0.03). Conclusion:A significant proportion of patients with advanced cancer visit the ED and many of these visits were classified as potentially avoidable based on expert judgment and adapted criteria.These findings highlight the need for further research and contextspecific strategies, such as care and early palliative integration, to safely reduce unnecessary ED use and enhance quality of life in low-and middle-income settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".