ArticleIntelligence-based medicine2023
Machine learning-based prediction of low-value care for hospitalized patients.
Article in Intelligence-based medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Low-value care (i.e., costly health care treatments that provide little or no benefit) is an ongoing problem in United States hospitals. Traditional strategies for reducing low-value care are only moderately successful. Informed by behavioral science principles, we sought to use machine learning to inform a targeted prompting system that suggests preferred alternative treatments at the point of care but before clinicians have made a decision. Methods: We used intravenous administration of albumin for fluid resuscitation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients as an exemplar of low-value care practice, identified using the electronic health record of a multi-hospital health system. We divided all ICU episodes into 4-h periods and defined a set of relevant clinical features at the period level. We then developed two machine learning models: a single-stage model that directly predicts if a patient will receive albumin in the next period; and a two-stage model that first predicts if any resuscitation fluid will be administered and then predicts albumin only among the patients with a high probability of fluid use. Results: We examined 87,489 ICU episodes divided into approximately 1.5 million 4-h periods. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 for both prediction models. The positive predictive value was 0.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.20, 0.23) for the single-stage model and 0.22 (0.20, 0.23) for the two-stage model. Applying either model in a targeted prompting system could prevent 10% of albumin administrations, with an attending physician receiving one prompt every 4.2 days of ICU service. Conclusion: Prediction of low-value care is feasible and could enable a point-of-care, targeted prompting system that offers suggestions ahead of the moment of need before clinicians have already decided. A two-stage approach does not improve performance but does interject new levers for the calibration of such a system.
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.