MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210552094 · doi:10.2196/35373

Predicting Falls in Long-term Care Facilities: Machine Learning Study

2022· article· en· W4210552094 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVital signsMedicineOddsGradient boostingReceiver operating characteristicBoosting (machine learning)JuniperRisk assessmentOdds ratioMachine learningArtificial intelligenceGerontologyComputer scienceLogistic regressionRandom forestGeographyInternal medicineSurgeryComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Short-term fall prediction models that use electronic health records (EHRs) may enable the implementation of dynamic care practices that specifically address changes in individualized fall risk within senior care facilities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to implement machine learning (ML) algorithms that use EHR data to predict a 3-month fall risk in residents from a variety of senior care facilities providing different levels of care. METHODS: This retrospective study obtained EHR data (2007-2021) from Juniper Communities' proprietary database of 2785 individuals primarily residing in skilled nursing facilities, independent living facilities, and assisted living facilities across the United States. We assessed the performance of 3 ML-based fall prediction models and the Juniper Communities' fall risk assessment. Additional analyses were conducted to examine how changes in the input features, training data sets, and prediction windows affected the performance of these models. RESULTS: The Extreme Gradient Boosting model exhibited the highest performance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.846 (95% CI 0.794-0.894), specificity of 0.848, diagnostic odds ratio of 13.40, and sensitivity of 0.706, while achieving the best trade-off in balancing true positive and negative rates. The number of active medications was the most significant feature associated with fall risk, followed by a resident's number of active diseases and several variables associated with vital signs, including diastolic blood pressure and changes in weight and respiratory rates. The combination of vital signs with traditional risk factors as input features achieved higher prediction accuracy than using either group of features alone. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the Extreme Gradient Boosting technique can use a large number of features from EHR data to make short-term fall predictions with a better performance than that of conventional fall risk assessments and other ML models. The integration of routinely collected EHR data, particularly vital signs, into fall prediction models may generate more accurate fall risk surveillance than models without vital signs. Our data support the use of ML models for dynamic, cost-effective, and automated fall predictions in different types of senior care facilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it