Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33512518›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Development of Electronic Health Record-Based Prediction Models for 30-Day Readmission Risk Among Patients Hospitalized for Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Michael E Matheny, Iben Ricket, Christine A Goodrich, Rashmee U Shah, Meagan E Stabler, Amy M Perkins, Chad Dorn, Jason Denton, Bruce E Bray, Ram Gouripeddi and 4 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Augmenting Electronic Health Records for Adverse Event Detection.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Large Models for Small Tables: Adapting Tabular Foundation Models to EHR Data.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Michael E MathenyDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Iben RicketDepartments of Epidemiology and Biomedical Data Science, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Christine A GoodrichDepartments of Epidemiology and Biomedical Data Science, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Rashmee U ShahDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Meagan E StablerDepartments of Epidemiology and Biomedical Data Science, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Amy M PerkinsDeparment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Chad DornDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Jason DentonDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Bruce E BrayDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Ram GouripeddiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
John HigginsDepartments of Epidemiology and Biomedical Data Science, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Wendy W ChapmanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
Todd A MacKenzieDepartments of Epidemiology and Biomedical Data Science, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Jeremiah R BrownDepartments of Epidemiology and Biomedical Data Science, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, New Hampshire.

Funding

Information Extraction from EMRs to Predict Readmission following Acute Myocardial InfarctionR01HL130828 · NHLBI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI BROWN, JEREMIAH R, MATHENY, MICHAEL E. · 2016 to 2019
$3.1M
Quantitative Biomedical Sciences at DartmouthT32LM012204 · NLM · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI TOSTESON, TOR D · 2016 to 2020
$876k
Improving Cardiovascular Drug Safety With Automated Bleeding ClassificationK08HL136850 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI SHAH, RASHMEE U. · 2017 to 2020
$652k
NHLBI NIH HHS K08 HL136850NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL130828NLM NIH HHS T32 LM012204
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: In the US, more than 600 000 adults will experience an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) each year, and up to 20% of the patients will be rehospitalized within 30 days. This study highlights the need for consideration of calibration in these risk models. Objective: To compare multiple machine learning risk prediction models using an electronic health record (EHR)-derived data set standardized to a common data model. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study that developed risk prediction models for 30-day readmission among all inpatients discharged from Vanderbilt University Medical Center between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2016, with a primary diagnosis of AMI who were not transferred from another facility. The model was externally validated at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center from April 2, 2011, to December 31, 2016. Data analysis occurred between January 4, 2019, and November 15, 2020. Exposures: Acute myocardial infarction that required hospital admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was thirty-day hospital readmission. A total of 141 candidate variables were considered from administrative codes, medication orders, and laboratory tests. Multiple risk prediction models were developed using parametric models (elastic net, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, and ridge regression) and nonparametric models (random forest and gradient boosting). The models were assessed using holdout data with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), percentage of calibration, and calibration curve belts. Results: The final Vanderbilt University Medical Center cohort included 6163 unique patients, among whom the mean (SD) age was 67 (13) years, 4137 were male (67.1%), 1019 (16.5%) were Black or other race, and 933 (15.1%) were rehospitalized within 30 days. The final Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center cohort included 4024 unique patients, with mean (SD) age of 68 (12) years; 2584 (64.2%) were male, 412 (10.2%) were rehospitalized within 30 days, and most of the cohort were non-Hispanic and White. The final test set AUROC performance was between 0.686 to 0.695 for the parametric models and 0.686 to 0.704 for the nonparametric models. In the validation cohort, AUROC performance was between 0.558 to 0.655 for parametric models and 0.606 to 0.608 for nonparametric models. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, 5 machine learning models were developed and externally validated to predict 30-day readmission AMI hospitalization. These models can be deployed within an EHR using routinely collected data.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsMachine LearningPatient ReadmissionAgedCalibrationFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMyocardial InfarctionPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33512518
PMCPMC7846941

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.