Leveraging patients’ longitudinal data to improve the Hospital One-year Mortality Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Predicting medium-term survival after admission is necessary for identifying end-of-life patients who may benefit from goals of care (GOC) discussions. Considering that several patients have multiple hospital admissions, this study leverages patients’ longitudinal data and information collected routinely at admission to predict the Hospital One-year Mortality Risk. Methods We propose an Ensemble Long Short-term Memory neural network (ELSTM) to predict one-year mortality using patients’ longitudinal records. The model was evaluated: (i) with only predictors reported upon admission (AdmDemo); and (ii) also with diagnoses available later during patients’ stay (AdmDemoDx). Using records of 123,646 patients with 250,812 hospitalizations from 2011-2021, our dataset was split into a learning set (2011-2017) to compare models with and without longitudinal information using nested cross-validation, and a holdout set (2017-2021) to assess clinical utility towards GOC discussions. Results The ELSTM achieved a significant increase in predictive performance using longitudinal information ( p -value < 0.05) for both the AdmDemo and AdmDemoDx predictors. For randomly selected hospitalizations in the holdout set, the ELSTM showed: (i) AUROCs of 0.83 (AdmDemo) and 0.87 (AdmDemoDx); and (ii) superior decision-making properties, notably with an increase in precision from 0.25 for the standard process to 0.28 (AdmDemo) and 0.36 (AdmDemoDx). Feature importance analysis confirmed that the utility of the longitudinal information increases with the number of patient hospitalizations. Conclusion Integrating patients’ longitudinal data provides better insights into the severity of illness and the overall patient condition, in particular when limited information is available during their stay.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".