Machine learning risk estimation and prediction of death in continuing care facilities using administrative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we aimed to identify the factors that were associated with mortality among continuing care residents in Alberta, during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We achieved this by leveraging and linking various administrative datasets together. Then, we examined pre-processing methods in terms of prediction performance. Finally, we developed several machine learning models and compared the results of these models in terms of performance. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all continuing care residents in Alberta, Canada, from March 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. We used a univariable and a multivariable logistic regression (LR) model to identify predictive factors of 60-day all-cause mortality by estimating odds ratios (ORs) with a 95% confidence interval. To determine the best sensitivity-specificity cut-off point, the Youden index was employed. We developed several machine learning models to determine the best model regarding performance. In this cohort study, increased age, male sex, symptoms, previous admissions, and some specific comorbidities were associated with increased mortality. Machine learning and pre-processing approaches offer a potentially valuable method for improving risk prediction for mortality, but more work is needed to show improvement beyond standard risk factors.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".