Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31898204›Full record

ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2020

Prediction of general medical admission length of stay with natural language processing and deep learning: a pilot study.

Stephen Bacchi, Samuel Gluck, Yiran Tan, Ivana Chim, Joy Cheng, Toby Gilbert, David K Menon, Jim Jannes, Timothy Kleinig, Simon Koblar

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Stephen BacchiNeurology Department, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia. stephen.bacchi@sa.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5130-8628
Samuel GluckNeurology Department, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Yiran TanNeurology Department, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Ivana ChimNeurology Department, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Joy ChengNeurology Department, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Toby GilbertNeurology Department, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
David K MenonDivision of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Jim JannesNeurology Department, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Timothy KleinigNeurology Department, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Simon KoblarNeurology Department, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Length of stay (LOS) and discharge destination predictions are key parts of the discharge planning process for general medical hospital inpatients. It is possible that machine learning, using natural language processing, may be able to assist with accurate LOS and discharge destination prediction for this patient group. Emergency department triage and doctor notes were retrospectively collected on consecutive general medical and acute medical unit admissions to a single tertiary hospital from a 2-month period in 2019. These data were used to assess the feasibility of predicting LOS and discharge destination using natural language processing and a variety of machine learning models. 313 patients were included in the study. The artificial neural network achieved the highest accuracy on the primary outcome of predicting whether a patient would remain in hospital for > 2 days (accuracy 0.82, area under the received operator curve 0.75, sensitivity 0.47 and specificity 0.97). When predicting LOS as an exact number of days, the artificial neural network achieved a mean absolute error of 2.9 and a mean squared error of 16.8 on the test set. For the prediction of home as a discharge destination (vs any non-home alternative), all models performed similarly with an accuracy of approximately 0.74. This study supports the feasibility of using natural language processing to predict general medical inpatient LOS and discharge destination. Further research is indicated with larger, more detailed, datasets from multiple centres to optimise and examine the accuracy that may be achieved with such predictions.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingAgedAged, 80 and overDeep LearningFemaleForecastingHospitalizationHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPatients' RoomsPilot ProjectsRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceDeep learningMachine learningNatural language processingNeural networkPrognostication

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.