Low Predictability of Readmissions and Death Using Machine Learning in Cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Readmission and death in cirrhosis are common, expensive, and difficult to predict. Our aim was to evaluate the abilities of multiple artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to predict clinical outcomes based on variables collected at admission, during hospitalization, and at discharge. METHODS: We used the multicenter North American Consortium for the Study of End-Stage Liver Disease (NACSELD) cohort of cirrhotic inpatients who are followed up through 90-days postdischarge for readmission and death. We used statistical methods to select variables that are significant for readmission and death and trained 3 AI models, including logistic regression (LR), kernel support vector machine (SVM), and random forest classifiers (RFC), to predict readmission and death. We used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) from 10-fold crossvalidation for evaluation to compare sexes. Data were compared with model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) at discharge. RESULTS: We included 2,170 patients (57 ± 11 years, MELD 18 ± 7, 61% men, 79% White, and 8% Hispanic). The 30-day and 90-day readmission rates were 28% and 47%, respectively, and 13% died at 90 days. Prediction for 30-day readmission resulted in 0.60 AUC for all patients with RFC, 0.57 AUC with LR for women-only subpopulation, and 0.61 AUC with LR for men-only subpopulation. For 90-day readmission, the highest AUC was achieved with kernel SVM and RFC (AUC = 0.62). We observed higher predictive value when training models with only women (AUC = 0.68 LR) vs men (AUC = 0.62 kernel SVM). Prediction for death resulted in 0.67 AUC for all patients, 0.72 for women-only subpopulation, and 0.69 for men-only subpopulation, all with LR. MELD-Na model AUC was similar to those from the AI models. DISCUSSION: Despite using multiple AI techniques, it is difficult to predict 30- and 90-day readmissions and death in cirrhosis. AI model accuracies were equivalent to models generated using only MELD-Na scores. Additional biomarkers are needed to improve our predictive capability (See also the visual abstract at http://links.lww.com/AJG/B710).
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".