Enhancing Hospitalized Patients' Palliative Care Referrals via Machine Learning-Based Predictive Modeling within Electronic Health Record Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Access to palliative care (PC) holds significance for hospital-admitted patients grappling with the symptoms of life limiting illnesses. Nonetheless, numerous such patients who could gain from PC fail to receive it promptly or even at all. We can leverage the prior year's historical data extracted from electronic health records of hospitalized patients to train a machine learning (ML) model. This model's purpose would be to prognosticate the requirement for PC consultation using real-time data. The model, operating as a semi-supervised system, will be integrated into institutional data pipelines, and utilized by a downstream display application overseen by the PC team. In cases where the PC team deems it suitable, a team member will communicate with the respective care team of the patient. The ML model's training efficacy will be assessed using the area under the curve (AUC) metric, employing a 20% reserved validation set. The threshold for PC consultations will be grounded in historical data. To enhance the ML model's precision, the pivotal variables within the model will be pinpointed, and any sources of biases or errors in the model will be identified for meticulous refinement. The AUC values of successive ML models will be juxtaposed with cross-validation data. Automatizing the referral procedure through electronic health record systems has the potential to usher in a more effective and streamlined approach to healthcare delivery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".