Predicting falls-related admissions in older adults in Alberta, Canada: a machine-learning falls prevention tool developed using population administrative health data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To construct a machine-learning (ML) model for health systems with organised falls prevention programmes to identify older adults at risk for fall-related admissions. DESIGN: This prognostic study used population-level administrative health data to develop an ML prediction model. SETTING: This study took place in Alberta, Canada during 2018-2019. PARTICIPANTS: Albertans aged 65 and older with at least one prior admission. Those with palliative conditions or emigrated out of Alberta were excluded. EXPOSURE: Unit of analysis was the individual person. MAIN OUTCOMES/MEASURES: We identified fall-related admissions. A CatBoost model was developed on 2018 data to predict risk of fall-related emergency department visits or hospitalisations. Temporal validation was done using 2019 data to evaluate model performance. We reported discrimination, calibration and other relevant metrics measured at the end of 2019 on both ranked predictions and predicted probability thresholds. A cost-savings simulation was performed using 2019 data. RESULTS: Final number of study participants was 224 445. The validation set had 203 584 participants with 19 389 fall-related events (9.5% pretest probability) and an ML model c-statistic of 0.70. The highest ranked predictions had post-test probabilities ranging from 40% to 50%. Net benefit analysis presented mixed results with some net benefit using the ML model in the 6%-30% range. The top 50 percentile of predicted risks represented nearly $C60 million in health system costs related to falls. Intervening on the top 25 or 50 percentiles of predicted risk could realise substantial (up to $C16 million) savings. CONCLUSION: ML prediction models based on population-level administrative data can assist health systems with fall prevention programmes identify older adults at risk of fall-related admissions and reduce costs. ML predictions based on ranked predictions or probability thresholds could guide subsequent interventions to mitigate fall risks. Increased access to diverse forms of data could improve ML performance and further reduce costs.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".