Systematic Review of Risk Adjustment Models of Hospital Length of Stay (LOS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Policy decisions in health care, such as hospital performance evaluation and performance-based budgeting, require an accurate prediction of hospital length of stay (LOS). This paper provides a systematic review of risk adjustment models for hospital LOS, and focuses primarily on studies that use administrative data. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, PubMed, and EconLit were searched for studies that tested the performance of risk adjustment models in predicting hospital LOS. We included studies that tested models developed for the general inpatient population, and excluded those that analyzed risk factors only correlated with LOS, impact analyses, or those that used disease-specific scales and indexes to predict LOS. RESULTS: Our search yielded 3973 abstracts, of which 37 were included. These studies used various disease groupers and severity/morbidity indexes to predict LOS. Few models were developed specifically for explaining hospital LOS; most focused primarily on explaining resource spending and the costs associated with hospital LOS, and applied these models to hospital LOS. We found a large variation in predictive power across different LOS predictive models. The best model performance for most studies fell in the range of 0.30-0.60, approximately. CONCLUSIONS: The current risk adjustment methodologies for predicting LOS are still limited in terms of models, predictors, and predictive power. One possible approach to improving the performance of LOS risk adjustment models is to include more disease-specific variables, such as disease-specific or condition-specific measures, and functional measures. For this approach, however, more comprehensive and standardized data are urgently needed. In addition, statistical methods and evaluation tools more appropriate to LOS should be tested and adopted.
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 | 0.025 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".