Predicting post‐discharge death or readmission: deterioration of model performance in population having multiple admissions per patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To avoid biased estimates of standard errors in regression models, statisticians commonly limit the analytical dataset to one observation per patient. OBJECTIVE: Measure and explain changes in model performance when a model predicting 30-day risk of death or urgent readmission (derived on a dataset having one hospitalization per patient) was applied to all hospitalizations for study patients. METHODS: Using administrative data from Ontario, we identified all hospitalizations of 499,996 patients between 2004 and 2009. We calculated the expected risk for 30-day death or urgent readmission using a validated model. The observed-to-expected ratio was determined after categorizing patients into quintiles of rates for hospitalization, emergent hospitalizations, hospital day and total diagnostic risk score. RESULTS: Study patients had a total of 858,410 hospitalizations. Compared with a dataset having one hospitalization per patient, model performance declined significantly when applied to all hospitalizations [c-statistic decreased from 0.768 to 0.730; the observed-to-expected ratio increased from 0.998 (95% confidence interval 0.977-0.999) to 1.305 (1.297-1.313)]. Model deterioration was most pronounced in patients with higher hospital utilization, with the observed-to-expected ratio increasing to 1.67 in the highest quintile of emergent hospitalization rates. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of predicting 30-day death or urgent readmission decreased significantly when the unit of analysis changed from the patient to the hospitalization. Patients with heavy hospital utilization likely have characteristics, not adequately captured in the model, that increase the risk of death or urgent readmission after discharge from hospital. Adequately capturing the characteristics of such high-end hospital users may improve readmission models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".