Machine Learning–Based Hospital Discharge Prediction for Patients With Cardiovascular Diseases: Development and Usability Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective resource management in hospitals can improve the quality of medical services by reducing labor-intensive burdens on staff, decreasing inpatient waiting time, and securing the optimal treatment time. The use of hospital processes requires effective bed management; a stay in the hospital that is longer than the optimal treatment time hinders bed management. Therefore, predicting a patient's hospitalization period may support the making of judicious decisions regarding bed management. OBJECTIVE: First, this study aims to develop a machine learning (ML)-based predictive model for predicting the discharge probability of inpatients with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Second, we aim to assess the outcome of the predictive model and explain the primary risk factors of inpatients for patient-specific care. Finally, we aim to evaluate whether our ML-based predictive model helps manage bed scheduling efficiently and detects long-term inpatients in advance to improve the use of hospital processes and enhance the quality of medical services. METHODS: We set up the cohort criteria and extracted the data from CardioNet, a manually curated database that specializes in CVDs. We processed the data to create a suitable data set by reindexing the date-index, integrating the present features with past features from the previous 3 years, and imputing missing values. Subsequently, we trained the ML-based predictive models and evaluated them to find an elaborate model. Finally, we predicted the discharge probability within 3 days and explained the outcomes of the model by identifying, quantifying, and visualizing its features. RESULTS: We experimented with 5 ML-based models using 5 cross-validations. Extreme gradient boosting, which was selected as the final model, accomplished an average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve score that was 0.865 higher than that of the other models (ie, logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine, and multilayer perceptron). Furthermore, we performed feature reduction, represented the feature importance, and assessed prediction outcomes. One of the outcomes, the individual explainer, provides a discharge score during hospitalization and a daily feature influence score to the medical team and patients. Finally, we visualized simulated bed management to use the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we propose an individual explainer based on an ML-based predictive model, which provides the discharge probability and relative contributions of individual features. Our model can assist medical teams and patients in identifying individual and common risk factors in CVDs and can support hospital administrators in improving the management of hospital beds and other resources.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it