Machine learning to improve frequent emergency department use prediction: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frequent emergency department use is associated with many adverse events, such as increased risk for hospitalization and mortality. Frequent users have complex needs and associated factors are commonly evaluated using logistic regression. However, other machine learning models, especially those exploiting the potential of large databases, have been less explored. This study aims at comparing the performance of logistic regression to four machine learning models for predicting frequent emergency department use in an adult population with chronic diseases, in the province of Quebec (Canada). This is a retrospective population-based study using medical and administrative databases from the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. Two definitions were used for frequent emergency department use (outcome to predict): having at least three and five visits during a year period. Independent variables included sociodemographic characteristics, healthcare service use, and chronic diseases. We compared the performance of logistic regression with gradient boosting machine, naïve Bayes, neural networks, and random forests (binary and continuous outcome) using Area under the ROC curve, sensibility, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Out of 451,775 ED users, 43,151 (9.5%) and 13,676 (3.0%) were frequent users with at least three and five visits per year, respectively. Random forests with a binary outcome had the lowest performances (ROC curve: 53.8 [95% confidence interval 53.5-54.0] and 51.4 [95% confidence interval 51.1-51.8] for frequent users 3 and 5, respectively) while the other models had superior and overall similar performance. The most important variable in prediction was the number of emergency department visits in the previous year. No model outperformed the others. Innovations in algorithms may slightly refine current predictions, but access to other variables may be more helpful in the case of frequent emergency department use prediction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".