Using Computational Approaches to Improve Risk-Stratified Patient Management: Rationale and Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases affect 52% of Americans and consume 86% of health care costs. A small portion of patients consume most health care resources and costs. More intensive patient management strategies, such as case management, are usually more effective at improving health outcomes, but are also more expensive. To use limited resources efficiently, risk stratification is commonly used in managing patients with chronic diseases, such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and heart disease. Patients are stratified based on predicted risk with patients at higher risk given more intensive care. The current risk-stratified patient management approach has 3 limitations resulting in many patients not receiving the most appropriate care, unnecessarily increased costs, and suboptimal health outcomes. First, using predictive models for health outcomes and costs is currently the best method for forecasting individual patient's risk. Yet, accuracy of predictive models remains poor causing many patients to be misstratified. If an existing model were used to identify candidate patients for case management, enrollment would miss more than half of those who would benefit most, but include others unlikely to benefit, wasting limited resources. Existing models have been developed under the assumption that patient characteristics primarily influence outcomes and costs, leaving physician characteristics out of the models. In reality, both characteristics have an impact. Second, existing models usually give neither an explanation why a particular patient is predicted to be at high risk nor suggestions on interventions tailored to the patient's specific case. As a result, many high-risk patients miss some suitable interventions. Third, thresholds for risk strata are suboptimal and determined heuristically with no quality guarantee. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to improve risk-stratified patient management so that more patients will receive the most appropriate care. METHODS: This study will (1) combine patient, physician profile, and environmental variable features to improve prediction accuracy of individual patient health outcomes and costs; (2) develop the first algorithm to explain prediction results and suggest tailored interventions; (3) develop the first algorithm to compute optimal thresholds for risk strata; and (4) conduct simulations to estimate outcomes of risk-stratified patient management for various configurations. The proposed techniques will be demonstrated on a test case of asthma patients. RESULTS: We are currently in the process of extracting clinical and administrative data from an integrated health care system's enterprise data warehouse. We plan to complete this study in approximately 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Methods developed in this study will help transform risk-stratified patient management for better clinical outcomes, higher patient satisfaction and quality of life, reduced health care use, and lower costs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".