MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415002482 · doi:10.1101/2025.10.08.25337521

Precipitating factors and avoidability of 7-day readmissions after hospitalization for heart failure

2025· preprint· en· W4415002482 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cathy A. Eastwood, Nicholas van Kampen, Danielle E. Fox, Chelsea Doktorchik, Robin L. Walker, Hude Quan, Jonathan Howlett, Kathryn King‐Shier

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureAuditMedical recordAdverse effectHospital readmissionHospital admission

Abstract

Abstract Background Hospital readmissions within 7 days after discharge are considered highly avoidable and undesirable for the patient and hospital. It is important to clarify gaps in the quality of inpatient care to identify strategies to address this problem. Aims We aimed to describe the precipitating factors and determine the potential avoidability of 7-day readmissions after hospitalization for heart failure (HF). Methods A health record audit was undertaken of patients discharged after hospitalization for HF from Calgary, Alberta hospitals. Content analysis was undertaken to identify factors precipitating readmission, and readmission’s avoidability was qualitatively examined and scored based on descriptive categories. Results Of 18,590 patients admitted to the hospital for HF during the study period, 191 HF patients were readmitted within 7 days (50% female; mean age 78 years). Potentially avoidable readmissions (57%) were due to unresolved symptoms, unaddressed social or self-care issues, adverse events from the index admission, high disability without added services, and discussions of palliative care without added services. Readmissions deemed less avoidable (43%) were due to new health issues, recurring symptoms post-stability at discharge, or refusal of care. Conclusion Only half of hospital readmissions within 7 days after HF discharge were related to HF and more than half were scored as avoidable. We provide novel criteria for identifying the avoidability of 7-day readmissions that could be used for assessing HF patients’ readiness for discharge and potentially reducing readmission rates.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: about_only · design weight: 3321.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Health record review of precipitating factors and avoidability of 7-day heart failure readmissions; a quality-of-care question about clinical services, not about research.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

This health-record audit studies avoidable heart-failure readmissions, not research methodology or governance.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Health-services audit of avoidable heart-failure readmissions; clinical care quality, not research practice.

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)0.009
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207