ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Readmission Risk in Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Conditions Using Patient EMR Data.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to develop a risk-based readmission prediction model using the EMR data available at discharge. This model was then validated with the LACE plus score. The study cohort consisted of about 310,000 hospital admissions of patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions. The EMR data of the patients consisted of lab results, vitals, medications, comorbidities, and admit/discharge settings. These data served as the input to an XGBoost model v1.7.6, which was then used to predict the number of days until the next readmission. Our model achieved remarkable results, with a precision score of 0.74 (±0.03), a recall score of 0.75 (±0.02), and an overall accuracy of approximately 82% (±5%). Notably, the model demonstrated a high accuracy rate of 78.39% in identifying the patients readmitted within 30 days and 80.81% accuracy for those with readmissions exceeding six months. The model was able to outperform the LACE plus score; of the people who were readmitted within 30 days, only 47.70 percent had a LACE plus score greater than 70, and, for people with greater than 6 months, only 10.09 percent had a LACE plus score less than 30. Furthermore, our analysis revealed that the patients with a higher comorbidity burden and lower-than-normal hemoglobin levels were associated with increased readmission rates. This study opens new doors to the world of differential patient care, helping both clinical decision makers and healthcare providers make more informed and effective decisions. This model is comparatively more robust and can potentially substitute the LACE plus score in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular settings for predicting the readmission risk.
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.