MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2625395634 · doi:10.2196/resprot.7434

Identifying Nonclinical Factors Associated With 30-Day Readmission in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease: Protocol for an Observational Study

2017· article· en· W2625395634 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew E. Dupre, Alicia Nelson, Scott M. Lynch, Bradi B. Granger, Hanzhang Xu, Janese M. Willis, Lesley H. Curtis, Eric D. Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsObservational studyMedicineProtocol (science)DiseaseAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of hospitalization in older adults and high readmission rates have attracted considerable attention as actionable targets to promote efficiency in care and to reduce costs. Despite a plethora of research over the past decade, current strategies to predict readmissions have been largely ineffective and efforts to identify novel clinical predictors have been largely unsuccessful. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine a wide array of socioeconomic, psychosocial, behavioral, and clinical factors to predict risks of 30-day hospital readmission in cardiovascular patients. METHODS: The study includes patients (aged 18 years and older) admitted for the treatment of cardiovascular-related illnesses at the Duke Heart Center, which is among the nation's largest and top-ranked cardiovascular care hospitals. The study uses a novel standardized survey to ascertain data on a comprehensive array of patient characteristics that will be linked to their electronic medical records. A series of univariate and multivariate models will be used to estimate the associations between the patient-level factors and 30-day readmissions. The performance of the risk models will be examined based on 2 components of accuracy-model calibration and discrimination-to determine how closely the predicted outcome agrees with the observed (actual) outcome and how well the model distinguishes patients who were readmitted and those who were not. The purpose of this paper is to present the protocol for the implementation of this study. RESULTS: The study was launched in February 2014 and is actively recruiting patients from the Heart Center. Approximately 550 patients have been enrolled to date and the study is expected to continue recruitment until February 2018. Preliminary results show that participants in the study were aged 63.6 years on average (SD 14.0), predominately male (61.2%), and primarily non-Hispanic white (64.6%) or non-Hispanic black (31.7%). The demographic characteristics of study participants were not significantly different from all patients admitted to the Heart Center during this period with an average age of 65.0 years (SD 15.3) and predominately male (58.6%), non-Hispanic white (62.9%) or non-Hispanic black (31.8%) The integration of the interview data with clinical data from the patient electronic medical records is currently underway. The study has received funding and ethical approval. CONCLUSIONS: Many US hospitals continue to struggle with high readmission rates in patients with cardiovascular disease. The primary objective of this study is to collect and integrate a comprehensive array of patient attributes to develop a powerful yet parsimonious model to stratify risks of rehospitalization in cardiovascular patients. The results of this research also have the potential to identify actionable targets for tailored interventions to improve patient outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.704
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.094 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→