MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 14508: Development of a Risk Prediction Model for 1-year Readmission Among Younger Adults Hospitalized for Acute Myocardial Infarction

2020· article· en· W3099728905 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel P. Dreyer, Terrence E. Murphy, Valeria Raparelli, Sui Tsang, Gail D' Onofrio, Nancy P. Lorenze, Louise Pilote

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionMedical recordLogistic regressionPsychosocialEmergency medicineInternal medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Although readmission over the first year following hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is common among younger adults (18-55 yrs), there is no available risk prediction model for this age group. Existing risk models have been developed in older populations, have modest predictive ability, and exhibit methodological drawbacks. We developed a risk prediction model that considered a broad range of demographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors for readmission within 1-year of hospitalization for AMI among young adults. Methods: Young AMI adults (18-55 yrs) were enrolled from the prospective observational VIRGO study (2008-2012) of 3,572 patients. Data were obtained from medical record abstraction, interviews, and adjudicated hospitalization records. The outcome was all-cause readmission within 1-year. We used a two-stage selection process (LASSO followed by Bayesian Model Averaging) to develop a risk model. Results: The median age was 48 years (IQR: 44,52), 67.1% were women, and 20.1% were Non-white or Hispanic. Within 1-year, 906 patients (25.3%) were readmitted. Patients who were readmitted were more likely to be female, black, and had a clustering of adverse risk factors and co-morbidities. From 61 original variables considered, the final multivariable model of readmission within 1-year of discharge consisted of 14 predictors (Figure) . The model was well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow P >0.05) with moderate discrimination (C statistic over 33 imputations: 0.69 development cohort). Conclusion: Adverse clinical risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension and prior AMI, but also female sex, access to specialist care, and major depression were associated with a higher risk of readmission at 1-year post AMI. This information is important to inform the development of interventions to reduce readmissions in young patients with AMI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207