MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Defining and evaluating potentially preventable ED visits in oncology patients including using early machine learning models.

2023· article· en· W4387962308 on OpenAlexaff
Sonal Gandhi, Lauren Fleshner, Monika K. Krzyzanowska, Alex Kiss, Ivy Cheng, William T. Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Oncology Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionEmergency departmentStage (stratigraphy)Breast cancerMedical diagnosisCancerRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineEmergency medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

463 Background: Cancer patients are frequent users of the emergency department (ED); preventing such visits is important for improving the quality of cancer care and decreasing health care system burden. This study describes oncology ED visits at a single institution, and seeks to define a novel definition of potentially preventable ED visits (PPEDs), particularly considering novel cancer therapies. It also uses machine learning (ML) to create early models to predict patients at highest risk of PPEDs. Methods: A retrospective study of ED visits by oncology patients between April 1 st , 2019 and April 1 st , 2021 at a single academic institution was completed. PPEDs were defined as ED visits resulting in discharge from the ED or an admission of less than 48 hours. PPEDs versus non-PPEDs were evaluated using descriptive statistics, logistic regression, and machine learning (ML) modelling. Results: 17% of cancer patients (n=6,689) had 13,415 ED visits during the study period. PPEDs differed in characteristics from non-PPEDs. Stage 1-3 patients with breast cancer, and those on IV systemic therapy were more likely to have PPEDs.Logistic regression models of pre-ED visit variables showed that stage, distance, and neoadjuvant systemic therapy were associated with PPEDs. Logistic regression of ED visit-related variables revealed that genitourinary, eye, or skin-related diagnoses were associated with PPEDs. The highest-performing ML model scored an AUC of 0.819, and combined pre-ED visit and ED visit related variables; stage 1-3 breast cancer patients, all IV chemotherapy patients, and stage 4 patients living within 15km of the ED, or with GI, oral or female gynecologic cancers were associated with PPEDs. ED diagnoses of “cancer” and MSK issues were associated with PPEDs. For those patients on IV systemic therapy specifically, having breast cancer, having a palliative consult within 60 days of the ED visit, or presenting with ED diagnoses of toxicities from therapy or blood disorders, pain, or rash were associated with PPEDs. Conclusions: Our novel definition of PPEDs versus non-PPEDs appears reasonable, and using machine learning has helped to describe groups of patients at highest likelihood of such visits at our institution. Future work to validate and advance these models into clinical prediction tools and algorithms could help proactively target high risk patients, and ideally decrease preventable ED visits in oncology.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Oncology PracticeSame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207