Development of Acute Myocardial Infarction Mortality and Readmission Models for Public Reporting on Hospital Performance in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given changes in the care and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients over the past several decades, we sought to develop prediction models that could be used to generate accurate risk-adjusted mortality and readmission outcomes for hospitals in current practice across Canada. METHODS: A Canadian national expert panel was convened to define appropriate AMI patients for reporting and develop prediction models. Preliminary candidate variable evaluation was conducted using Ontario patients hospitalized with a most responsible diagnosis of AMI from April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2018. National data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information was used to develop AMI prediction models. The main outcomes were 30-day all-cause in-hospital mortality and 30-day urgent all-cause readmission. Discrimination of these models (measured by c-statistics) was compared with that of existing Canadian Institute for Health Information models in the same study cohort. RESULTS: The AMI mortality model was assessed in 54,240 Ontario AMI patients and 153,523 AMI patients across Canada. We observed a 30-day in-hospital mortality rate of 6.3%, and a 30-day all-cause urgent readmission rate of 10.7% in Canada. The final Canadian AMI mortality model included 12 variables and had a c-statistic of 0.834. For readmission, the model had 13 variables and a c-statistic of 0.679. Discrimination of the new AMI models had higher c-statistics compared with existing models (c-statistic 0.814 for mortality; 0.673 for readmission). CONCLUSIONS: In this national collaboration, we developed mortality and readmission models that are suitable for profiling performance of hospitals treating AMI patients in Canada.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".