Patient-Reported Outcomes Improves the Prediction of In-patient and Emergency Department Readmission Risks in Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionCoronary Artery Disease (CAD) patients are known to report higher healthcare resource use, such as inpatient [IP] and emergency department [ED] readmissions, than the general population. We investigate if the patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) improve the accuracy of readmissions risk prediction models in CAD.
 Objectives and ApproachPatients enrolled in the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcomes Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) registry between 1995 and 2014 who received catheterization (CATH) and completed baseline PROMs were linked to discharge abstract data and national ambulatory data. Logistic regression (LR) was used to develop 30-day and 1-year readmissions risk prediction models adjusting for patients’ demographic, clinical, and self-reported characteristics. PROM was measured using the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ). The discriminatory performance of each prediction model was assessed using the Harrel’s c-statistic for LR.
 ResultsOf the 13,264 patients who completed baseline SAQ, 59 (0.3%) had IP readmissions or ED visits within 30 days, and up to 356 (1.9%) within 1 year of baseline survey. The C-statistics for one-year readmissions risk prediction models that only adjusted for demographic and clinical variables only ranged between 56.4% and 61.2%. The prognostic improvement in the discrimination of these models ranged between 2% to 10% when patient-reported SAQ was included as predictor. The addition of SAQ improves the model discrimination in all types of admission.
 Conclusion/ImplicationsThe addition of PROMs improves the moderate accuracy of readmissions risk prediction models. These findings highlight the need for routine collection of PROMs in clinical settings and their potential use for aiding clinical and policy decision-making and post-discharge outcomes monitoring in the management of cardiovascular diseases.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".