MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386707663 · doi:10.32920/24132873.v1

Heterogeneous Patient Graph Embedding in Readmission Prediction

2023· preprint· en· W4386707663 on OpenAlexafffund
Hirad Daneshva, Reza Samavi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsEmbeddingComputer scienceGraphMental healthMachine learningEmergency departmentGraph embeddingContext (archaeology)Artificial intelligenceMental healthcareMedical recordHealth careMedicineTheoretical computer sciencePsychiatryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The number of youth seeking mental health services has been increasing in the past decade. Accurate prediction of hospital readmission is a contributing factor in addressing youth mental health problem and healthcare service utilization. Medical records are an important source of information for readmission prediction, however utilizing such records in the context of mental care, requires overcoming two impeding challenges: the diversity of service utilization (e.g., using psychiatric vs. overdose vs. trauma clinics all for the same underlying mental health reason) and the heterogeneity of data associated with each service. Graph Neural Network (GNN) is shown to be promising in performing classification or regression tasks when input data bears a complex structure. In this research, we propose using graph embedding to first generate patient graph that captures episodic emergency department visits and the complex service utilizations of the patient. We then use GNN for readmission prediction. For embedding and training purposes, we utilize more than 4,000 unique mental health patients data over 19 years. To evaluate our approach we systematically compare a variety of of GNN models with four RNN models, namely LSTM, Bi-LSTM, GRU, and Bi-GRU. Our experimental evaluation demonstrates that encoding the complex interrelationship between features of a patient using graph embedding and GNN improves the performance of the predictive model compared to RNN counterparts. </p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207