Predictive Modeling of Emergency Hospital Transport Using Medical Alert Pattern Data: Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the transition from a fee-for-service to a fee-for-value system, health care organizations (HCOs) are under pressure to keep patients healthy through preventive services and population health management. Predictive analytics based on the past health behavior of the patient population can be used to predict future risk of decline. Objective: The objective of this study was to develop robust predictive models of impending emergency transports to the hospital based on enrollment and medical alert pattern data from subscribers of a Personal Emergency Response System (PERS) service. This enables targeting of clinical programs to members that need it the most. Methods: De-identified medical alert pattern data of 551,127 subscribers to a PERS service were used. Multivariate logistic regression was performed on subscriber demographics, self-reported medical conditions, variables related to the care giver network and variables derived from up to one year of retrospective medical alert data. A 10-fold cross-validation scheme was used to predict transport to the hospital by emergency medical services in the next 30 days. Furthermore, the model performance was evaluated after retraining using up to 90 days of medical alert data, and using enrollment data only. Results: Emergency hospital transport in the 30-day window was experienced by 2.4% of all subscribers. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (auROC) was 0.75 ± 0.01 in the validation cohorts. The model using up to 90 days of data resulted in auROC = 0.71 ± 0.01 and the model using enrollment data only resulted in auROC = 0.62 ± 0.01. Conclusions: Our model for emergency hospital transport in subscribers of a medical alert service showed good discriminatory accuracy on retrospective validation data. While the model yields good discriminatory accuracy with up to 90 days of data, best performance is achieved using up to one year of medical alert data. The model using enrollment data only, without medical alert pattern data, does not perform as well. We are planning a prospective validation of the algorithm to determine the value of the predictive model in assisting HCOs with planning early interventions to avoid emergency department visits and hospitalizations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".