Cross-Site Predictions of Readmission After Psychiatric Hospitalization With Mood or Psychotic Disorders: Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with mood or psychotic disorders experience high rates of unplanned hospital readmissions. Predicting the likelihood of readmission can guide discharge decisions and optimize patient care. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the predictive power of structured variables from electronic health records for all-cause readmission across multiple sites within the Mass General Brigham health system and to assess the transportability of prediction models between sites. Methods: This retrospective, multisite study analyzed structured variables from electronic health records separately for each site to develop in-site prediction models. The transportability of these models was evaluated by applying them across different sites. Predictive performance was measured using the F1-score, and additional adjustments were made to account for differences in predictor distributions. Results: The study found that the relevant predictors of readmission varied significantly across sites. For instance, length of stay was a strong predictor at only 3 of the 4 sites. In-site prediction models achieved an average F1-score of 0.661, whereas cross-site predictions resulted in a lower average F1-score of 0.616. Efforts to improve transportability by adjusting for differences in predictor distributions did not improve performance. Conclusions: The findings indicate that individual site-specific models are necessary to achieve reliable prediction accuracy. Furthermore, the results suggest that the current set of predictors may be insufficient for cross-site model transportability, highlighting the need for more advanced predictor variables and predictive algorithms to gain robust insights into the factors influencing early psychiatric readmissions.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".