Predicting 30-Days Hospital Readmission for Patients with Heart Failure Using Electronic Health Record Embeddings: Comparative Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Heart failure (HF) is a public health concern with a wider impact on quality of life and cost of care. One of the major challenges in HF is the higher rate of unplanned readmissions and suboptimal performance of models to predict the readmissions. Hence, in this study, we implemented embeddings-based approaches to generate features for improving model performance. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of different feature embedding approaches for improving the prediction of unplanned readmissions in patients with heart failure. Methods: We compared three embedding approaches including word2vec on terminology codes and concept unique identifier (CUIs) and BERT on descriptive text of concept with baseline (one hot-encoding). We compared area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) and F1-scores for the logistic regression, eXtream gradient-boosting (XGBoost) and artificial neural network (ANN) models using these embedding approaches. The model was tested on the heart failure cohort (N=21,031) identified using least restrictive phenotyping methods from MIMIC-IV dataset. Results: We found that the embedding approaches significantly improved the performance of the prediction models. The XGBoost performed better for all approaches. The word2vec embeddings (0.65) trained on the dataset outperformed embeddings from pre-trained BERT model (0.59) using descriptive text. Conclusions: Embedding methods, particularly word2vec trained on electronic health record data, can better discriminate HF readmission cases compared to both one-hot encoding and pre-trained BERT embeddings on concept descriptions making it a viable approach of automation feature selection. The observed AUROC improvement (0.65 vs 0.54) may support more effective risk stratification and targeted clinical interventions.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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".