Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model to Estimate Risk of Adverse Outcomes Within 30 Days of Opioid Dispensation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Machine learning approaches can assist opioid stewardship by identifying high-risk opioid prescribing for potential interventions. Objective: To develop a machine learning model for deployment that can estimate the risk of adverse outcomes within 30 days of an opioid dispensation as a potential component of prescription drug monitoring programs using access to real-world data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study used population-level administrative health data to construct a machine learning model. This study took place in Alberta, Canada (from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019), and included all patients 18 years and older who received at least 1 opioid dispensation from a community pharmacy within the province. Exposures: Each opioid dispensation served as the unit of analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Opioid-related adverse outcomes were identified from administrative data sets. An XGBoost model was developed on 2018 data to estimate the risk of hospitalization, an emergency department visit, or mortality within 30 days of an opioid dispensation; validation on 2019 data was done to evaluate model performance. Model discrimination, calibration, and other relevant metrics are reported using daily and weekly predictions on both ranked predictions and predicted probability thresholds using all data from 2019. Results: A total of 853 324 participants represented 6 181 025 opioid dispensations, with 145 016 outcome events reported (2.3%); 46.4% of the participants were men and 53.6% were women, with a mean (SD) age of 49.1 (15.6) years for men and 51.0 (18.0) years for women. Of the outcome events, 77 326 (2.6% pretest probability) occurred within 30 days of a dispensation in the validation set (XGBoost C statistic, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.81-0.82]). The top 0.1 percentile of estimated risk had a positive likelihood ratio (LR) of 28.7, which translated to a posttest probability of 43.1%. In our simulations, the weekly measured predictions had higher positive LRs in both the highest-risk dispensations and percentiles of estimated risk compared with predictions measured daily. Net benefit analysis showed that using machine learning prediction may not add additional benefit over the entire range of probability thresholds. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that prescription drug monitoring programs can use machine learning classifiers to identify patients at risk of opioid-related adverse outcomes and intervene on high-risk ranked predictions. Better access to available administrative and clinical data could improve the prediction performance of machine learning classifiers and thus expand opioid stewardship efforts.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 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 ».