Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30181113›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2018

Validating a Machine Learning Algorithm to Predict 30-Day Re-Admissions in Patients With Heart Failure: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study.

Sujay Kakarmath, Sara Golas, Jennifer Felsted, Joseph Kvedar, Kamal Jethwani, Stephen Agboola

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

Sujay KakarmathData Science and Analytics Unit, Partners Connected Health, Partners HealthCare, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9870-8773
Sara GolasData Science and Analytics Unit, Partners Connected Health, Partners HealthCare, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6155-9452
Jennifer FelstedData Science and Analytics Unit, Partners Connected Health, Partners HealthCare, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8805-8703
Joseph KvedarDepartment of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7517-2291
Kamal JethwaniDepartment of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0122-8002
Stephen AgboolaData Science and Analytics Unit, Partners Connected Health, Partners HealthCare, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2161-8091

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBig data solutions, particularly machine learning predictive algorithms, have demonstrated the ability to unlock value from data in real time in many settings outside of health care. Rapid growth in electronic medical record adoption and the shift from a volume-based to a value-based reimbursement structure in the US health care system has spurred investments in machine learning solutions. Machine learning methods can be used to build flexible, customized, and automated predictive models to optimize resource allocation and improve the efficiency and quality of health care. However, these models are prone to the problems of overfitting, confounding, and decay in predictive performance over time. It is, therefore, necessary to evaluate machine learning-based predictive models in an independent dataset before they can be adopted in the clinical practice. In this paper, we describe the protocol for independent, prospective validation of a machine learning-based model trained to predict the risk of 30-day re-admission in patients with heart failure.

objectiveThis study aims to prospectively validate a machine learning-based predictive model for inpatient admissions in patients with heart failure by comparing its predictions of risk for 30-day re-admissions against outcomes observed prospectively in an independent patient cohort.

methodsAll adult patients with heart failure who are discharged alive from an inpatient admission will be prospectively monitored for 30-day re-admissions through reports generated by the electronic medical record system. Of these, patients who are part of the training dataset will be excluded to avoid information leakage to the algorithm. An expected sample size of 1228 index admissions will be required to observe a minimum of 100 30-day re-admission events. Deidentified structured and unstructured data will be fed to the algorithm, and its prediction will be recorded. The overall model performance will be assessed using the concordance statistic. Furthermore, multiple discrimination thresholds for screening high-risk patients will be evaluated according to the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and estimated cost savings to our health care system.

resultsThe project received funding in April 2017 and data collection began in June 2017. Enrollment was completed in July 2017. Data analysis is currently underway, and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in October 2018.

conclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to prospectively evaluate a predictive machine learning algorithm in a real-world setting. Findings from this study will help to measure the robustness of predictions made by machine learning algorithms and set a realistic benchmark for expectations of gains that can be made through its application to health care. REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/9466.

Indexed as

electronic medical recordsheart failuremachine learningpredictive algorithmsreadmissions

Identifiers

PMID30181113
PMCPMC6231891

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.