Comparing the Predictive Effects of Patient Medication Adherence Indices in Electronic Health Record and Claims-Based Risk Stratification Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple indices are available to measure medication adherence behaviors. Medication adherence measures, however, have rarely been extracted from electronic health records (EHRs) for population-level risk predictions. This study assessed the value of medication adherence indices in improving predictive models of cost and hospitalization. This study included a 2-year retrospective cohort of patients younger than age 65 years with linked EHR and insurance claims data. Three medication adherence measures were calculated: medication regimen complexity index (MRCI), medication possession ratio (MPR), and prescription fill rate (PFR). The authors examined the effects of adding these measures to 3 predictive models of utilization: a demographics model, a conventional model (Charlson index), and an advanced diagnosis-based model. Models were trained using EHR and claims data. The study population had an overall MRCI, MPR, and PFR of 14.6 ± 17.8, .624 ± .310, and .810 ± .270, respectively. Adding MRCI and MPR to the demographic and the morbidity models using claims data improved forecasting of next-year hospitalization substantially (eg, AUC of the demographic model increased from .605 to .656 using MRCI). Nonetheless, such boosting effects were attenuated for the advanced diagnosis-based models. Although EHR models performed inferior to claims models, adding adherence indices improved EHR model performances at a larger scale (eg, adding MRCI increased AUC by 4.4% for the Charlson model using EHR data compared to 3.8% using claims). This study shows that medication adherence measures can modestly improve EHR- and claims-derived predictive models of cost and hospitalization in non-elderly patients; however, the improvements are minimal for advanced diagnosis-based models.
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 | 0.048 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".