Using Computational Methods to Improve Integrated Disease Management for Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Protocol for a Secondary Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) impose a heavy burden on health care. Approximately one-fourth of patients with asthma and patients with COPD are prone to exacerbations, which can be greatly reduced by preventive care via integrated disease management that has a limited service capacity. To do this well, a predictive model for proneness to exacerbation is required, but no such model exists. It would be suboptimal to build such models using the current model building approach for asthma and COPD, which has 2 gaps due to rarely factoring in temporal features showing early health changes and general directions. First, existing models for other asthma and COPD outcomes rarely use more advanced temporal features, such as the slope of the number of days to albuterol refill, and are inaccurate. Second, existing models seldom show the reason a patient is deemed high risk and the potential interventions to reduce the risk, making already occupied clinicians expend more time on chart review and overlook suitable interventions. Regular automatic explanation methods cannot deal with temporal data and address this issue well. OBJECTIVE: To enable more patients with asthma and patients with COPD to obtain suitable and timely care to avoid exacerbations, we aim to implement comprehensible computational methods to accurately predict proneness to exacerbation and recommend customized interventions. METHODS: We will use temporal features to accurately predict proneness to exacerbation, automatically find modifiable temporal risk factors for every high-risk patient, and assess the impact of actionable warnings on clinicians' decisions to use integrated disease management to prevent proneness to exacerbation. RESULTS: We have obtained most of the clinical and administrative data of patients with asthma from 3 prominent American health care systems. We are retrieving other clinical and administrative data, mostly of patients with COPD, needed for the study. We intend to complete the study in 6 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our results will help make asthma and COPD care more proactive, effective, and efficient, improving outcomes and saving resources. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/27065.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".