Predicting Discharge Destination of Critically Ill Patients Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision making about discharge destination for critically ill patients is a highly subjective and multidisciplinary process, heavily reliant on the ICU care team, patients and their caregivers' preferences, resource demand, staffing, and bed capacity. Timely identification of discharge disposition can be useful in care planning, and as a surrogate for functional status outcomes following critical illness. Although prior research has proposed methods to predict discharge destination in a critical care setting, they are limited in scope and in the generalizability of their findings. We proposed and implemented different machine learning architectures to determine the efficacy of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score as well as the patient characteristics that comprise it to predict the discharge destination for critically ill patients within 24 hours of ICU admission. We conducted a retrospective study of ICU admissions within the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) populated with de-identified clinical data from adult patients admitted to an ICU between 2014 and 2015. Machine learning models were developed to predict four discharge categories: death, home, nursing facility, and rehabilitation. These models were trained and tested on 115,248 unique ICU admissions. To mitigate class imbalance, we used synthetic minority over-sampling techniques. Hierarchical and ensemble classifiers were used to further study the impact of imbalanced testing set on the performance of our predictive models. Amongst all of the tested models, XGBoost provided the best discrimination performance with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 90% (recall: 71%, F1: 70%). Our findings indicate that the variables used in the APACHE IV model for estimating patient severity of illness are better predictors of hospital discharge destination than the APACHE IV score alone. Incorporating these models into clinical decision support systems may assist patients, caregivers, and the ICU team to begin disposition planning as early as possible during the hospitalization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".