Development of Deep Learning Models for Predicting In-Hospital Mortality Using an Administrative Claims Database: Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Administrative claims databases have been used widely in studies because they have large sample sizes and are easily available. However, studies using administrative databases lack information on disease severity, so a risk adjustment method needs to be developed. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and validate deep learning-based prediction models for in-hospital mortality of acute care patients. METHODS: The main model was developed using only administrative claims data (age, sex, diagnoses, and procedures on the day of admission). We also constructed disease-specific models for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and pneumonia using common severity indices for these diseases. Using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination data from July 2010 to March 2017, we identified 46,665,933 inpatients and divided them into derivation and validation cohorts in a ratio of 95:5. The main model was developed using a 9-layer deep neural network with 4 hidden dense layers that had 1000 nodes and were fully connected to adjacent layers. We evaluated model discrimination ability by an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration ability by calibration plot. RESULTS: Among the eligible patients, 2,005,035 (4.3%) died. Discrimination and calibration of the models were satisfactory. The AUC of the main model in the validation cohort was 0.954 (95% CI 0.954-0.955). The main model had higher discrimination ability than the disease-specific models. CONCLUSIONS: Our deep learning-based model using diagnoses and procedures produced valid predictions of in-hospital mortality.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".