Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28077408›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Predicting patient 'cost blooms' in Denmark: a longitudinal population-based study.

Suzanne Tamang, Arnold Milstein, Henrik Toft Sørensen, Lars Pedersen, Lester Mackey, Jean-Raymond Betterton, Lucas Janson, Nigam Shah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Ethical Machine Learning in Healthcare.Annual review of biomedical data science · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Suzanne TamangDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Arnold MilsteinDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Henrik Toft SørensenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Lars PedersenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Lester MackeyDepartment of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Jean-Raymond BettertonDepartment of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Lucas JansonDepartment of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Nigam ShahDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.

Funding

POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING IN MEDICAL INFORMATION SCIENCEST15LM007033 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SYLVIA KATINA PLEVRITIS · 1985 to 2026
$25.5M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the ability of standard versus enhanced models to predict future high-cost patients, especially those who move from a lower to the upper decile of per capita healthcare expenditures within 1 year-that is, 'cost bloomers'.

designWe developed alternative models to predict being in the upper decile of healthcare expenditures in year 2 of a sample, based on data from year 1. Our 6 alternative models ranged from a standard cost-prediction model with 4 variables (ie, traditional model features), to our largest enhanced model with 1053 non-traditional model features. To quantify any increases in predictive power that enhanced models achieved over standard tools, we compared the prospective predictive performance of each model. PARTICIPANTS AND

settingWe used the population of Western Denmark between 2004 and 2011 (2 146 801 individuals) to predict future high-cost patients and characterise high-cost patient subgroups. Using the most recent 2-year period (2010-2011) for model evaluation, our whole-population model used a cohort of 1 557 950 individuals with a full year of active residency in year 1 (2010). Our cost-bloom model excluded the 155 795 individuals who were already high cost at the population level in year 1, resulting in 1 402 155 individuals for prediction of cost bloomers in year 2 (2011). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Using unseen data from a future year, we evaluated each model's prospective predictive performance by calculating the ratio of predicted high-cost patient expenditures to the actual high-cost patient expenditures in Year 2-that is, cost capture.

resultsOur best enhanced model achieved a 21% and 30% improvement in cost capture over a standard diagnosis-based model for predicting population-level high-cost patients and cost bloomers, respectively.

conclusionsIn combination with modern statistical learning methods for analysing large data sets, models enhanced with a large and diverse set of features led to better performance-especially for predicting future cost bloomers.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsHealth ExpendituresDenmarkFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansInsurance, HealthLongitudinal StudiesMaleModels, EconometricRisk AdjustmentUtilization Reviewhigh-cost patientspredictive analytics

Identifiers

PMID28077408
PMCPMC5253526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.