Predicting Emergency Department Visits Based on Cancer Patient Types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. This study evaluates the predictive ability of patient types (clusters of similar patients) in identifying cancer patients at high risk for emergency department (ED) visits within one year (365 days) following their index date. A descriptive and retrospective cohort study of 45,356 unique cancer patients with only one primary cancer type and at least one ED visit was done using linked administrative sources of health care data. Methods. Three outcomes were investigated in this study. First, the time of ED visit following an index date was predicted using multiple linear regression. Second, those patients who visited an ED within seven days of their index date were detected using logistic regression. In addition to predicting an emergency department visit, vital status of patients was also predicted using logistic regression. We implemented the linear/logistic regression first on unclustered raw data and then on clustered data. The results of these two analyses were then compared. Conclusion. Clustering was found to contribute to a modest improvement in prediction accuracy for all three outcome variables. The results are discussed in terms of the predictive ability of patient types in development of clinical support tools with respect to privacy of patients and their implications for better allocation of resources to cancer patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".