Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33441908›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Comparison of deep learning with traditional models to predict preventable acute care use and spending among heart failure patients.

Maor Lewis, Guy Elad, Moran Beladev, Gal Maor, Kira Radinsky, Dor Hermann, Yoav Litani, Tal Geller, Jesse M Pines, Nathan L Shapiro and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maor LewisDiagnostic Robotics Inc., Tel Aviv, Israel. maorl@diagnosticrobotics.com.
Guy EladDiagnostic Robotics Inc., Tel Aviv, Israel.
Moran BeladevDiagnostic Robotics Inc., Tel Aviv, Israel.
Gal MaorDiagnostic Robotics Inc., Tel Aviv, Israel.
Kira RadinskyDiagnostic Robotics Inc., Tel Aviv, Israel.
Dor HermannDiagnostic Robotics Inc., Tel Aviv, Israel.
Yoav LitaniDiagnostic Robotics Inc., Tel Aviv, Israel.
Tal GellerDiagnostic Robotics Inc., Tel Aviv, Israel.
Jesse M PinesDiagnostic Robotics Inc., Tel Aviv, Israel.
Nathan L ShapiroDiagnostic Robotics Inc., Tel Aviv, Israel.
Jose F FigueroaDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. jfigueroa@hsph.harvard.edu.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent health reforms have created incentives for cardiologists and accountable care organizations to participate in value-based care models for heart failure (HF). Accurate risk stratification of HF patients is critical to efficiently deploy interventions aimed at reducing preventable utilization. The goal of this paper was to compare deep learning approaches with traditional logistic regression (LR) to predict preventable utilization among HF patients. We conducted a prognostic study using data on 93,260 HF patients continuously enrolled for 2-years in a large U.S. commercial insurer to develop and validate prediction models for three outcomes of interest: preventable hospitalizations, preventable emergency department (ED) visits, and preventable costs. Patients were split into training, validation, and testing samples. Outcomes were modeled using traditional and enhanced LR and compared to gradient boosting model and deep learning models using sequential and non-sequential inputs. Evaluation metrics included precision (positive predictive value) at k, cost capture, and Area Under the Receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). Deep learning models consistently outperformed LR for all three outcomes with respect to the chosen evaluation metrics. Precision at 1% for preventable hospitalizations was 43% for deep learning compared to 30% for enhanced LR. Precision at 1% for preventable ED visits was 39% for deep learning compared to 33% for enhanced LR. For preventable cost, cost capture at 1% was 30% for sequential deep learning, compared to 18% for enhanced LR. The highest AUROCs for deep learning were 0.778, 0.681 and 0.727, respectively. These results offer a promising approach to identify patients for targeted interventions.

Indexed as

AgedDeep LearningEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHeart FailureHospitalizationHumansLogistic ModelsMachine LearningMalePredictive Value of TestsPrognosisROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID33441908
PMCPMC7806727
OpenAlexW3119786029

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.