Identifying Sociomarkers of Pediatric Asthma Patients at Risk of Hospital Revisiting
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ObjectiveAsthma is one of the most common chronic childhood diseases in the United States [2, 3]. In addition to its pervasiveness, pediatric asthma shows high sensitivity to the environment. Combining medical-social dataset with machine learning methods we demonstrate how socio-markers play an important role in identifying patients at risk of hospital revisits due to pediatric asthma within a year.IntroductionA socio-marker is a measurable indicator of social conditions where a patient is embedded in and exposed to, being analogous with a biomarker indicating the severity or presence of some disease state. Social factors are one of the most clinical health determinants [1], which play a critical role in explaining health outcomes. Socio-markers can help medical practitioners and researchers to reliably identify high-risk individuals in a timely manner.MethodsWe collected data from three different sources: pediatric asthma encounter records from Jan 1st, 2016 to Dec 31st, 2016 at a children’s hospital, the 2010 U.S census data and neighborhood quality survey data by Memphis Property Hub. After merging these datasets we examine the effect of social features in identifying the patients who visited the hospital more than once during the observation period. We only use the first time visit (3,678 cases) to avoid over-counting of the same patients. In addition to demographic features (age, gender, insurance type, and race (African American and White)), we incorporate the social features such as the proportion of individuals living below the federal poverty level, blight prevalence, neighborhood quality, neighborhood quality inequality, trash dumping presence, the broken window pervasiveness within the zip code area of patients’ residence are included.We then implemented a Support Vector Machine (SVM) based classification model using abovementioned 11 social features. The classification outcome is either patient visits the hospital only one-time (class 0) or revisits the hospital within a year (class 1). Among 3,678 unique patients in the dataset, only 823 pediatric patients revisited hospital with asthma. So, to overcome the class imbalance issue, we have used 823 patients’ data (randomly selected in 1,000 iterations) from each class. Further, to avoid overfitting and ensure generalizability, we divided the dataset as training, test, and validation with a proportion of 60%, 20%, and 20%, respectively. The reported test (5-folds cross-validation using training and testing data) and validation accuracy of the SVM method are averaged over 1,000 iterations to avoid sampling error and bias.ResultsThe proposed socio-marker model resulted in an average classification accuracy of 63.70% for the test set and 63.67 % for the validation set. Further, the average specificity (the total true negative cases divided by the sum of true negative and false positive) and sensitivity (the total number of true positive cases divided by the sum of positive predicted cases) is found to be 62.79% and 64.77%, respectively for the test set and 62.79% and 64.83%, respectively for the validation set. Results of this study suggest that socio-marker features that are not directly related to a patient’s medical conditions can still predict whether the patient will come back to the hospital within a year or not with approximately 64% accuracy.ConclusionsBringing the socio-marker features in the surveillance system may ease the burden of detecting the patients at risk of revisiting the hospital. The results should be interpreted with caution because we only used 12-month period of observation and the visit beyond the observation window is not considered. Also the patients may have visited different hospitals which are not captured in the data.References1. Booske BC, Athens JK, Kindig DA, Park H, Remington PL: Different perspectives for assigning weights to determinants of health. University of Wisconsin: Population Health Institute 2010.2. Subbarao P, Mandhane PJ, Sears MR: Asthma: epidemiology, etiology and risk factors. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2009, 181(9):E181-E190.3. Gold DR, Wright R: Population disparities in asthma. Annu Rev Public Health 2005, 26:89-113.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».