ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Improving diagnosis-based quality measures: an application of machine learning to the prediction of substance use disorder among outpatients.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSubstance use disorder (SUD) is clinically under-detected and under-documented. We built and validated machine learning (ML) models to estimate SUD prevalence from electronic health record (EHR) data and to assess variation in facility-level SUD identification using clinically documented diagnoses vs model-based estimated prevalence.
methodsPredictors included demographics, SUD-related diagnoses and healthcare utilisation. The criterion outcome for model development was prevalent SUD assessed via a patient survey across 30 geographically representative Veterans Health Administration (VA) sites (n=5989 patients). We split the data into training and testing datasets and built a series of ML models using cross-validation to minimise over-fitting. We selected the final model based on its performance in predicting SUD in the testing dataset. Using the final model, we estimated SUD prevalence at all 30 sites. We then compared facilities based on SUD identification using two alternative SUD identification measures: the facility-level SUD diagnosis rate and model-based estimated SUD prevalence.
resultsThe best-performing LASSO model with n=61 predictors doubled the sensitivity for classifying SUD relative to a model with only documented SUD diagnoses (0.682 vs 0.331). Across the 30 sites, SUD diagnosis rates ranged from 6.4%-13.9% and predicted SUD prevalence ranged from 9.7-16.0%. The difference in facility-level SUD identification (observed diagnosis rate minus predicted prevalence) ranged from -7.2 to +1.3 percentage points. Comparing facilities' rank ordering on documented SUD diagnosis rates vs estimated SUD prevalence, 16 out of 30 sites had a ranking that changed by at least a quintile (ie, 6 places or more).
conclusionsThis analysis shows that use of model-based performance measures may help address measurement blind spots that arise due to differences in diagnostic accuracy across sites. Although model-based estimates better estimate SUD prevalence relative to diagnoses alone for facility quality assessment, further improvements and individual SUD detection both require enhanced direct screening for non-alcohol drug use.
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.