Predicting 30-day risk from benzodiazepine/Z-drug dispensations in older adults using administrative data: A prognostic machine learning approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a machine-learning (ML) model using administrative data to estimate risk of adverse outcomes within 30-days of a benzodiazepine (BZRA) dispensation in older adults for use by health departments/regulators. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study was conducted in Alberta, Canada during 2018-2019 in Albertans 65 years of age and older. Those with any history of malignancy or palliative care were excluded. EXPOSURE: Each BZRA dispensation from a community pharmacy served as the unit of analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: ML algorithms were developed on 2018 administrative data to predict risk of any-cause hospitalization, emergency department visit or death within 30-days of a BZRA dispensation. Validation on 2019 administrative data was done using XGBoost to evaluate discrimination, calibration and other relevant metrics on ranked predictions. Daily and quarterly predictions were simulated on 2019 data. RESULTS: 65,063 study participants were included which represented 633,333 BZRA dispensation during 2018-2019. The validation set had 314,615 dispensations linked to 55,928 all-cause outcomes representing a pre-test probability of 17.8%. C-statistic for the XGBoost model was 0.75. Measuring risk at the end of 2019, the top 0.1 percentile of predicted risk had a LR + of 40.31 translating to a post-test probability of 90%. Daily and quarterly classification simulations resulted in uninformative predictions with positive likelihood ratios less than 10 in all risk prediction categories. Previous history of admissions was ranked highest in variable importance. CONCLUSION: Developing ML models using only administrative health data may not provide health regulators with sufficient informative predictions to use as decision aids for potential interventions, especially if considering daily or quarterly classifications of BZRA risks in older adults. ML models may be informative for this context if yearly classifications are preferred. Health regulators should have access to other types of data to improve ML 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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".