ArticleBMJ open2017
Predicting patient 'cost blooms' in Denmark: a longitudinal population-based study.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prediction Models for Future High-Need High-Cost Healthcare Use: a Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Nursing Process Data for Health Care Cost Prediction Using Machine Learning: Longitudinal Study.JMIR nursing · 2026Observational
- A preliminary study of a lifetime long-term care costs estimation model based on changes in care level: implications for sustainable long-term care in Japan.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Multiple sclerosis risk stratification and healthcare cost prediction using machine learning.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Developing and Applying the BE-FAIR Equity Framework to a Population Health Predictive Model: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Observational
- Article
- Transforming health care systems towards high-performance organizations: qualitative study based on learning from COVID-19 pandemic in the Basque Country (Spain).BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Reasons for hospitalisation and cumulative mortality in people, 75 years or older, at high risk of hospital admission: a prospective study.BMC geriatrics · 2024Observational
- Machine learning algorithms to predict treatment success for patients with pulmonary tuberculosis.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Multivariable prediction models for health care spending using machine learning: a protocol of a systematic review.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2022Article
- Defining Complex Patient Populations: Implications for Population Size, Composition, Utilization, and Costs.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Application of Bayesian network and regression method in treatment cost prediction.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Ethical Machine Learning in Healthcare.Annual review of biomedical data science · 2021Article
- Intersections of machine learning and epidemiological methods for health services research.International journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Comparison of deep learning with traditional models to predict preventable acute care use and spending among heart failure patients.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Language models are an effective representation learning technique for electronic health record data.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2021Article
- Machine-learning-based prediction models for high-need high-cost patients using nationwide clinical and claims data.NPJ digital medicine · 2020Article
- Use of Data-Driven Methods to Predict Long-term Patterns of Health Care Spending for Medicare Patients.JAMA network open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.