Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34670553›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

Predictive modeling for 14-day unplanned hospital readmission risk by using machine learning algorithms.

Yu-Tai Lo, Jay Chiehen Liao, Mei-Hua Chen, Chia-Ming Chang, Cheng-Te Li

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  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
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yu-Tai Lo *Department of Geriatrics and Gerontology, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Jay Chiehen Liao *Institute of Data Science, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, University Road, Tainan City 701, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Mei-Hua ChenDepartment of Geriatrics and Gerontology, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Chia-Ming ChangDepartment of Geriatrics and Gerontology, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Cheng-Te LiInstitute of Data Science, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, University Road, Tainan City 701, Taiwan (R.O.C.). chengte@mail.ncku.edu.tw.
National Cheng Kung University · TWNational Cheng Kung University Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly unplanned hospital readmissions are associated with increased harm to patients, increased medical costs, and negative hospital reputation. With the identification of at-risk patients, a crucial step toward improving care, appropriate interventions can be adopted to prevent readmission. This study aimed to build machine learning models to predict 14-day unplanned readmissions.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study on 37,091 consecutive hospitalized adult patients with 55,933 discharges between September 1, 2018, and August 31, 2019, in an 1193-bed university hospital. Patients who were aged < 20 years, were admitted for cancer-related treatment, participated in clinical trial, were discharged against medical advice, died during admission, or lived abroad were excluded. Predictors for analysis included 7 categories of variables extracted from hospital's medical record dataset. In total, four machine learning algorithms, namely logistic regression, random forest, extreme gradient boosting, and categorical boosting, were used to build classifiers for prediction. The performance of prediction models for 14-day unplanned readmission risk was evaluated using precision, recall, F1-score, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC).

resultsIn total, 24,722 patients were included for the analysis. The mean age of the cohort was 57.34 ± 18.13 years. The 14-day unplanned readmission rate was 1.22%. Among the 4 machine learning algorithms selected, Catboost had the best average performance in fivefold cross-validation (precision: 0.9377, recall: 0.5333, F1-score: 0.6780, AUROC: 0.9903, and AUPRC: 0.7515). After incorporating 21 most influential features in the Catboost model, its performance improved (precision: 0.9470, recall: 0.5600, F1-score: 0.7010, AUROC: 0.9909, and AUPRC: 0.7711).

conclusionsOur models reliably predicted 14-day unplanned readmissions and were explainable. They can be used to identify patients with a high risk of unplanned readmission based on influential features, particularly features related to diagnoses. The operation of the models with physiological indicators also corresponded to clinical experience and literature. Identifying patients at high risk with these models can enable early discharge planning and transitional care to prevent readmissions. Further studies should include additional features that may enable further sensitivity in identifying patients at a risk of early unplanned readmissions.

Indexed as

Machine LearningPatient ReadmissionAdultAgedAlgorithmsHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsDischarge planningHealthcare quality indicatorsMachine learningRisk prediction modelUnplanned readmission

Identifiers

PMID34670553
PMCPMC8527795
OpenAlexW3205040636

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.