Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34233616›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Comparing regression modeling strategies for predicting hometime.

Jessalyn K Holodinsky, Amy Y X Yu, Moira K Kapral, Peter C Austin

Abstract read
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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Prediction of recurrence and functional status in young ischemic stroke patients: Comparison of machine learning and traditional statistical methods.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Machine Learning Approach to Identify Predictors of Frequent Vaping and Vulnerable Californian Youth Subgroups.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Jessalyn K HolodinskyDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N4N1, Canada. jkholodi@ucalgary.ca.
Amy Y X YuICES, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Moira K KapralICES, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Peter C AustinICES, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

CIHR 385156
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHometime, the total number of days a person is living in the community (not in a healthcare institution) in a defined period of time after a hospitalization, is a patient-centred outcome metric increasingly used in healthcare research. Hometime exhibits several properties which make its statistical analysis difficult: it has a highly non-normal distribution, excess zeros, and is bounded by both a lower and upper limit. The optimal methodology for the analysis of hometime is currently unknown.

methodsUsing administrative data we identified adult patients diagnosed with stroke between April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2017 in Ontario, Canada. 90-day hometime and clinically relevant covariates were determined through administrative data linkage. Fifteen different statistical and machine learning models were fit to the data using a derivation sample. The models' predictive accuracy and bias were assessed using an independent validation sample.

resultsSeventy-five thousand four hundred seventy-five patients were identified (divided into a derivation set of 49,402 and a test set of 26,073). In general, the machine learning models had lower root mean square error and mean absolute error than the statistical models. However, some statistical models resulted in lower (or equal) bias than the machine learning models. Most of the machine learning models constrained predicted values between the minimum and maximum observable hometime values but this was not the case for the statistical models. The machine learning models also allowed for the display of complex non-linear interactions between covariates and hometime. No model captured the non-normal bucket shaped hometime distribution.

conclusionsOverall, no model clearly outperformed the others. However, it was evident that machine learning methods performed better than traditional statistical methods. Among the machine learning methods, generalized boosting machines using the Poisson distribution as well as random forests regression were the best performing. No model was able to capture the bucket shaped hometime distribution and future research on factors which are associated with extreme values of hometime that are not available in administrative data is warranted.

Indexed as

Machine LearningModels, StatisticalAdultForecastingHospitalizationHumansOntario

Identifiers

PMID34233616
PMCPMC8261957

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.