Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34081720›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Application of machine learning approaches to administrative claims data to predict clinical outcomes in medical and surgical patient populations.

Emily J MacKay, Michael D Stubna, Corey Chivers, Michael E Draugelis, William J Hanson, Nimesh D Desai, Peter W Groeneveld

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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
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.

Emily J MacKayDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9865-419X
Michael D StubnaPenn Predictive Healthcare, Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Corey ChiversPenn Predictive Healthcare, Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Michael E DraugelisPenn Predictive Healthcare, Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
William J HansonDivision of Cardiovascular Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Nimesh D DesaiPenn's Cardiovascular Outcomes, Quality and Evaluative Research Center (CAVOQER), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Peter W GroeneveldPenn's Cardiovascular Outcomes, Quality and Evaluative Research Center (CAVOQER), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7374-4292

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to develop and validate a claims-based, machine learning algorithm to predict clinical outcomes across both medical and surgical patient populations.

methodsThis retrospective, observational cohort study, used a random 5% sample of 770,777 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with an inpatient hospitalization between 2009-2011. The machine learning algorithms tested included: support vector machine, random forest, multilayer perceptron, extreme gradient boosted tree, and logistic regression. The extreme gradient boosted tree algorithm outperformed the alternatives and was the machine learning method used for the final risk model. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were: rehospitalization, and any of 23 adverse clinical events occurring within 30 days of the index admission date.

resultsThe machine learning algorithm performance was evaluated by both the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) and Brier Score. The risk model demonstrated high performance for prediction of: 30-day mortality (AUROC = 0.88; Brier Score = 0.06), and 17 of the 23 adverse events (AUROC range: 0.80-0.86; Brier Score range: 0.01-0.05). The risk model demonstrated moderate performance for prediction of: rehospitalization within 30 days (AUROC = 0.73; Brier Score: = 0.07) and six of the 23 adverse events (AUROC range: 0.74-0.79; Brier Score range: 0.01-0.02). The machine learning risk model performed comparably on a second, independent validation dataset, confirming that the risk model was not overfit. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We have developed and validated a robust, claims-based, machine learning risk model that is applicable to both medical and surgical patient populations and demonstrates comparable predictive accuracy to existing risk models.

Indexed as

Machine LearningTreatment OutcomeArea Under CurveDatabases, FactualHospitalizationHumansLogistic ModelsMedicareModels, TheoreticalMortalityRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentROC CurveUnited States

Identifiers

PMID34081720
PMCPMC8174683

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.