Development and evaluation of a predictive algorithm for unsatisfactory response among patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension using health insurance claims data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and validate a predictive algorithm for unsatisfactory response to initial pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) therapy using health insurance claims. METHODS: Adult patients with PAH initiated on a first PAH therapy (index date) were identified from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database (1/1/2010-12/31/2019). A random survival forest algorithm was developed using patient-month data and predicted the "survival function" (i.e. risk of not having unsatisfactory response) over time. For each patient-month observation, risk factors were assessed in the 12 months prior. Unsatisfactory response was defined as the first instance of (1) new PAH therapy, (2) PAH-related hospitalization or emergency room visit, (3) lung transplant or atrial septostomy, (4) PAH-related death or (5) chronic oxygen therapy initiation. To facilitate use in clinical practice, a simplified risk score was also developed based on a linear combination of the most important risk factors identified in the algorithm. RESULTS: In total, 4781 patients were included (median age = 69.0 years; 58.6% female). Over a median follow-up of 14.0 months, 3169 (66.3%) had an unsatisfactory response. The most important risk factors included in the algorithm were healthcare resource use (i.e. PAH-related outpatient visits, pulmonologist visits, cardiologist visits, all-cause hospitalizations), time since first PAH diagnosis, time since index date, Charlson Comorbidity Index, dyspnea, and age. Predictive accuracy was good for the full algorithm (C-statistic: 0.732) but was slightly lower for the simplified risk score (C-statistic: 0.668). CONCLUSION: The present claims-based algorithm performed well in predicting time to unsatisfactory response following initial PAH therapy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".