ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021
Comparing regression modeling strategies for predicting hometime.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Crosswalk between HRSD and MADRS outcomes for rTMS in patients with depression.BMJ mental health · 2025Trial
- 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 · 2026Article
- Performance of five dynamic models in predicting tuberculosis incidence in three prisons in Thailand.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Measuring restrictiveness of Medicare Advantage networks: A claims-based approach.Health services research · 2024Article
- Prediction of 90-Day Home Time Among Patients With Medium-Vessel Occlusion Undergoing Endovascular Thrombectomy.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Machine learning-assisted analysis for agronomic dataset of 49 Balangu (Lallemantia iberica L.) ecotypes from different regions of Iran.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- Perspectives on Home Time and Its Association With Quality of Life After Inpatient Surgery Among US Veterans.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Identification of a Metabolic Reprogramming-Associated Risk Model Related to Prognosis, Immune Microenvironment, and Immunotherapy of Stomach Adenocarcinoma.Journal of oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.