Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33443694›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021

Man vs. Machine: Comparing Physician vs. Electronic Health Record-Based Model Predictions for 30-Day Hospital Readmissions.

Oanh Kieu Nguyen, Colin Washington, Christopher R Clark, Michael E Miller, Vivek A Patel, Ethan A Halm, Anil N Makam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Oanh Kieu NguyenDepartment of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA. Oanh.Nguyen@ucsf.edu.
Colin WashingtonDepartment of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.
Christopher R ClarkDepartment of Research Administration, Parkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas, TX, USA.
Michael E MillerDepartment of Population and Data Sciences, UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.
Vivek A PatelDepartment of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.
Ethan A HalmDepartment of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.
Anil N MakamDepartment of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.

Funding

UT Southwestern Center for Translational Medicine (UL1/KL2/TL1)UL1TR001105 · NCATS · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI TOTO, ROBERT DANIEL · 2013 to 2017
$24.5M
UT Southwestern Center of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR)R24HS022418 · AHRQ · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI HALM, ETHAN A · 2013 to 2017
$5.0M
Post-Acute Care in the Elderly: the Role of Long-Term Acute Care HospitalsK23AG052603 · NIA · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI MAKAM, ANIL NAGA · 2016 to 2021
$1.1M
Addressing Social Vulnerabilities to Prevent Hospital Readmissions in Adults with Cardiovascular DiseaseK23HL133441 · NHLBI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI NGUYEN, OANH KIEU · 2017 to 2021
$932k
AHRQ HHS R24 HS022418NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001105NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR001105NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL133441NHLBI NIH HHS K23HL133441NIA NIH HHS K23 AG052603NIA NIH HHS K23AG052603
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic health record (EHR)-based readmission risk prediction models can be automated in real-time but have modest discrimination and may be missing important readmission risk factors. Clinician predictions of readmissions may incorporate information unavailable in the EHR, but the comparative usefulness is unknown. We sought to compare clinicians versus a validated EHR-based prediction model in predicting 30-day hospital readmissions.

methodsWe conducted a prospective survey of internal medicine clinicians in an urban safety-net hospital. Clinicians prospectively predicted patients' 30-day readmission risk on 5-point Likert scales, subsequently dichotomized into low- vs. high-risk. We compared human with machine predictions using discrimination, net reclassification, and diagnostic test characteristics. Observed readmissions were ascertained from a regional hospitalization database. We also developed and assessed a "human-plus-machine" logistic regression model incorporating both human and machine predictions.

resultsWe included 1183 hospitalizations from 106 clinicians, with a readmission rate of 20.8%. Both clinicians and the EHR model had similar discrimination (C-statistic 0.66 vs. 0.66, p = 0.91). Clinicians had higher specificity (79.0% vs. 48.9%, p < 0.001) but lower sensitivity (43.9 vs. 75.2%, p < 0.001) than EHR model predictions. Compared with machine, human was better at reclassifying non-readmissions (non-event NRI + 30.1%) but worse at reclassifying readmissions (event NRI - 31.3%). A human-plus-machine approach best optimized discrimination (C-statistic 0.70, 95% CI 0.67-0.74), sensitivity (65.5%), and specificity (66.7%).

conclusionClinicians had similar discrimination but higher specificity and lower sensitivity than EHR model predictions. Human-plus-machine was better than either alone. Readmission risk prediction strategies should incorporate clinician assessments to optimize the accuracy of readmission predictions.

Indexed as

Patient ReadmissionPhysiciansElectronic Health RecordsHospitalizationHumansMaleProspective StudiesRisk Factorselectronic health recordshospitalizationlogistic modelspatient readmissionsafety-net providers

Identifiers

PMID33443694
PMCPMC8390613

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.