Performance of the LACE index to identify elderly patients at high risk for hospital readmission in Singapore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unplanned readmissions may be avoided by accurate risk prediction and appropriate resources could be allocated to high risk patients. The Length of stay, Acuity of admission, Charlson comorbidity index, Emergency department visits in past six months (LACE) index was developed to predict hospital readmissions in Canada. In this study, we assessed the performance of the LACE index in a Singaporean cohort by identifying elderly patients at high risk of 30-day readmissions. We further investigated the use of additional risk factors in improving readmission prediction performance.Data were extracted from the hospital's electronic health records (EHR) for all elderly patients ≥ 65 years, with alive-discharge episodes from Singapore General Hospital in 2014. In addition to LACE, we also collected patients' data during the index admission, including demographics, medical history, laboratory results, and previous medical utilization.Among the 17,006 patients analyzed, 2051 or 12.1% of them were observed 30-day readmissions. The final predictive model was better than the LACE index in terms of discriminative ability; c-statistic of LACE index and final logistic regression model was 0.595 and 0.628, respectively.The LACE index had poor discriminative ability in identifying elderly patients at high risk of 30-day readmission, even if it was augmented with additional risk factors. Further studies should be conducted to discover additional factors that may enable more accurate and timely identification of patients at elevated risk of readmissions, so that necessary preventive actions can be taken.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".