Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30646340›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2018

Assessment of Time-Series Machine Learning Methods for Forecasting Hospital Discharge Volume.

Thomas H McCoy, Amelia M Pellegrini, Roy H Perlis

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Forecasting hospital bed occupancy: a time series approach with prophet.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Machine learning in patient flow: a review.Progress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2021
    Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. 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

3 authors.

Thomas H McCoyCenter for Quantitative Health, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Amelia M PellegriniCenter for Quantitative Health, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Roy H PerlisCenter for Quantitative Health, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Forecasting the volume of hospital discharges has important implications for resource allocation and represents an opportunity to improve patient safety at periods of elevated risk. Objective: To determine the performance of a new time-series machine learning method for forecasting hospital discharge volume compared with simpler methods. Design: A retrospective cohort study of daily hospital discharge volumes at 2 large, New England academic medical centers between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2014 (hospital 1), or January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2010 (hospital 2), comparing time-series forecasting methods for prediction was performed. Data analysis was conducted from February 28, 2017, to August 30, 2018. Group-level data for all discharges from inpatient units were included. In addition to conventional methods, a technique originally developed for allocating data center resources, and comparison strategies for incorporating prior data and frequency of model updates, was conducted to identify the model application that optimized forecast accuracy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Model calibration as measured by R2 and, secondarily, number of days with errors greater than 1 SD of daily volume. Results: During the forecasted year, hospital 1 had 54 411 discharges (daily mean, 149) and hospital 2 had 47 456 discharges (daily mean, 130). The machine learning method was well calibrated at both sites (R2, 0.843 and 0.726, respectively) and made errors greater than 1 SD of daily volume on only 13 and 22 days, respectively, of the forecast year at the 2 sites. Last-value-carried-forward models performed somewhat less well (calibration R2, 0.781 and 0.596, respectively) with 13 and 46 errors of 1 SD or greater, respectively. More frequent retraining and training sets of longer than 1 year had minimal effects on the machine learning method's performance. Conclusions and Relevance: Volume of hospital discharges can perhaps be reliably forecasted using simple carry-forward models as well as methods drawn from machine learning. The benefit of the latter does not appear to be dependent on extensive training data and may enable forecasts up to 1 year in advance with superior absolute accuracy to carry-forward models.

Indexed as

Academic Medical CentersHospitalsMachine LearningModels, StatisticalPatient DischargeForecastingHumansNew England

Identifiers

PMID30646340
PMCPMC6324591

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.