Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33952192›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Application of machine learning in predicting hospital readmissions: a scoping review of the literature.

Yinan Huang, Ashna Talwar, Satabdi Chatterjee, Rajender R Aparasu

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Can prediction models for hospital readmission be improved by incorporating patient-reported outcome measures? A systematic review and narrative synthesis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Optimizing temporal windows for wearable-augmented post-discharge risk prediction: a methods study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Yinan HuangDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Houston, 4849 Calhoun Road, Health & Sciences Bldg 2, Houston, TX, 77204, USA.
Ashna TalwarDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Houston, 4849 Calhoun Road, Health & Sciences Bldg 2, Houston, TX, 77204, USA.
Satabdi ChatterjeeDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Houston, 4849 Calhoun Road, Health & Sciences Bldg 2, Houston, TX, 77204, USA.
Rajender R AparasuDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Houston, 4849 Calhoun Road, Health & Sciences Bldg 2, Houston, TX, 77204, USA. rraparasu@uh.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2310-901X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances in machine learning (ML) provide great opportunities in the prediction of hospital readmission. This review synthesizes the literature on ML methods and their performance for predicting hospital readmission in the US.

methodsThis review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Statement. The extraction of items was also guided by the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Electronic databases PUBMED, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were systematically searched from January 1, 2015, through December 10, 2019. The articles were imported into COVIDENCE online software for title/abstract screening and full-text eligibility. Observational studies using ML techniques for hospital readmissions among US patients were eligible for inclusion. Articles without a full text available in the English language were excluded. A qualitative synthesis included study characteristics, ML algorithms utilized, and model validation, and quantitative analysis assessed model performance. Model performances in terms of Area Under the Curve (AUC) were analyzed using R software. Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool was used to assess the quality of the reviewed studies.

resultsOf 522 citations reviewed, 43 studies met the inclusion criteria. A majority of the studies used electronic health records (24, 56%), followed by population-based data sources (15, 35%) and administrative claims data (4, 9%). The most common algorithms were tree-based methods (23, 53%), neural network (NN) (14, 33%), regularized logistic regression (12, 28%), and support vector machine (SVM) (10, 23%). Most of these studies (37, 85%) were of high quality. A majority of these studies (28, 65%) reported ML algorithms with an AUC above 0.70. There was a range of variability within AUC reported by these studies with a median of 0.68 (IQR: 0.64-0.76; range: 0.50-0.90).

conclusionsThe ML algorithms involving tree-based methods, NN, regularized logistic regression, and SVM are commonly used to predict hospital readmission in the US. Further research is needed to compare the performance of ML algorithms for hospital readmission prediction.

Indexed as

Machine LearningPatient ReadmissionAlgorithmsArea Under CurveHumansLogistic ModelsHospital readmissionMachine learningPredictionScoping review

Identifiers

PMID33952192
PMCPMC8101040

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.