The predictive power of geographic health care utilization for unintentional fatal fall rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Falls are the leading cause of fatal and nonfatal injuries among adults over 65 years old. The increase in fall mortality rates is likely multifactorial. With a lack of key drivers identified to explain rising rates of death from falls, accurate predictive modelling can be challenging, hindering evidence-based health resource and policy efforts. The objective of this work is to examine the predictive power of geographic utilization and longitudinal trends in mortality from unintentional falls amongst different demographic and geographic strata. Methods This is a nationwide, retrospective cohort study using the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) database. The exposure was death from an unintentional fall as determined by the CDC. Outcomes included aggregate and trend crude and age-adjusted death rates. Health care utilization, reimbursement, and cost metrics were also compared. Results Over 2001 to 2018, 465,486 total deaths due to unintentional falls were recorded with crude and age-adjusted rates of 8.42 and 7.76 per 100,000 population respectively. Comparing age-adjusted rates, males had a significantly higher age-adjusted death rate (9.89 vs. 6.17; p < 0.00001), but both male and female annual age-adjusted mortality rates are expected to rise (Male: + 0.25 rate/year, R2= 0.98; Female: + 0.22 rate/year, R2= 0.99). There were significant increases in death rates commensurate with increasing age, with the adults aged 85 years or older having the highest aggregate (201.1 per 100,000) and trending death rates (+ 8.75 deaths per 100,000/year, R2= 0.99). Machine learning algorithms using health care utilization data were accurate in predicting geographic age-adjusted death rates. Conclusions Machine learning models have high accuracy in predicting geographic age-adjusted mortality rates from health care utilization data. In the United States from 2001 through 2018, adults aged 85+ years carried the highest death rate from unintentional falls and this rate is forecasted to accelerate.
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".