Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36261581›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Predicting mortality in the very old: a machine learning analysis on claims data.

Aleksander Krasowski, Joachim Krois, Adelheid Kuhlmey, Hendrik Meyer-Lueckel, Falk Schwendicke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Machine learning prediction of survival in centenarians after age 100: a retrospective, population-based cohort study.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Aleksander KrasowskiDepartment of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany.
Joachim KroisDepartment of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany.
Adelheid KuhlmeyInstitute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Hendrik Meyer-LueckelDepartment of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, Zmk Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Falk SchwendickeDepartment of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany. falk.schwendicke@charite.de.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) may be used to predict mortality. We used claims data from one large German insurer to develop and test differently complex ML prediction models, comparing them for their (balanced) accuracy, but also the importance of different predictors, the relevance of the follow-up period before death (i.e. the amount of accumulated data) and the time distance of the data used for prediction and death. A sample of 373,077 insured very old, aged 75 years or above, living in the Northeast of Germany in 2012 was drawn and followed over 6 years. Our outcome was whether an individual died in one of the years of interest (2013-2017) or not; the primary metric was (balanced) accuracy in a hold-out test dataset. From the 86,326 potential variables, we used the 30 most important ones for modeling. We trained a total of 45 model combinations: (1) Three different ML models were used; logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGB); (2) Different periods of follow-up were employed for training; 1-5 years; (3) Different time distances between data used for prediction and the time of the event (death/survival) were set; 0-4 years. The mortality rate was 9.15% in mean per year. The models showed (balanced) accuracy between 65 and 93%. A longer follow-up period showed limited to no advantage, but models with short time distance from the event were more accurate than models trained on more distant data. RF and XGB were more accurate than LR. For RF and XGB sensitivity and specificity were similar, while for LR sensitivity was significantly lower than specificity. For all three models, the positive-predictive-value was below 62% (and even dropped to below 20% for longer time distances from death), while the negative-predictive-value significantly exceeded 90% for all analyses. The utilization of and costs for emergency transport as well as emergency and any hospital visits as well as the utilization of conventional outpatient care and laboratory services were consistently found most relevant for predicting mortality. All models showed useful accuracies, and more complex models showed advantages. The variables employed for prediction were consistent across models and with medical reasoning. Identifying individuals at risk could assist tailored decision-making and interventions.

Indexed as

Machine LearningGermanyHumansLogistic Models

Identifiers

PMID36261581
PMCPMC9581892
OpenAlexW4306790203

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.