Training and Interpreting Machine Learning Algorithms to Evaluate Fall Risk After Emergency Department Visits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Machine learning is increasingly used for risk stratification in health care. Achieving accurate predictive models do not improve outcomes if they cannot be translated into efficacious intervention. Here we examine the potential utility of automated risk stratification and referral intervention to screen older adults for fall risk after emergency department (ED) visits. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated several machine learning methodologies for the creation of a risk stratification algorithm using electronic health record data and estimated the effects of a resultant intervention based on algorithm performance in test data. METHODS: Data available at the time of ED discharge were retrospectively collected and separated into training and test datasets. Algorithms were developed to predict the outcome of a return visit for fall within 6 months of an ED index visit. Models included random forests, AdaBoost, and regression-based methods. We evaluated models both by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, also referred to as area under the curve (AUC), and by projected clinical impact, estimating number needed to treat (NNT) and referrals per week for a fall risk intervention. RESULTS: The random forest model achieved an AUC of 0.78, with slightly lower performance in regression-based models. Algorithms with similar performance, when evaluated by AUC, differed when placed into a clinical context with the defined task of estimated NNT in a real-world scenario. CONCLUSION: The ability to translate the results of our analysis to the potential tradeoff between referral numbers and NNT offers decisionmakers the ability to envision the effects of a proposed intervention before implementation.
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 | 0.025 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".