MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414939429 · doi:10.2196/71617

Identifying Key Variances in Clinical Pathways Associated With Prolonged Hospital Stays Using Machine Learning and ePath Real-World Data: Model Development and Validation Study

2025· article· en· W4414939429 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saori Tou, Koutarou Matsumoto, Asato Hashinokuchi, Fumihiko Kinoshita, Yasunobu Nohara, Takanori Yamashita, Yoshifumi Wakata, Tomoyoshi Takenaka, Hidehisa Soejima, Tomoharu Yoshizumi, Naoki Nakashima, Masahiro Kamouchi

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Clinical pathwayMEDLINEVariance (accounting)Deep learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prolonged hospital stays can lead to inefficiencies in health care delivery and unnecessary consumption of medical resources. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify key clinical variances associated with prolonged length of stay (PLOS) in clinical pathways using a machine learning model trained on real-world data from the ePath system. METHODS: We analyzed data from 480 patients with lung cancer (age: mean 68.3, SD 11.2 years; n=263, 54.8% men) who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery at a university hospital between 2019 and 2023. PLOS was defined as a hospital stay exceeding 9 days after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. The variables collected between admission and 4 days after surgery were examined, and those that showed a significant association with PLOS in univariate analyses (P<.01) were selected as predictors. Predictive models were developed using sparse linear regression methods (Lasso, ridge, and elastic net) and decision tree ensembles (random forest and extreme gradient boosting). The data were divided into derivation (earlier study period) and testing (later period) cohorts for temporal validation. The model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, Brier score, and calibration plots. Counterfactual analysis was used to identify key clinical factors influencing PLOS. RESULTS: A 3D heatmap illustrated the temporal relationships between clinical factors and PLOS based on patient demographics, comorbidities, functional status, surgical details, care processes, medications, and variances recorded from admission to 4 days after surgery. Among the 5 algorithms evaluated, the ridge regression model demonstrated the best performance in terms of both discrimination and calibration. Specifically, it achieved area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of 0.84 and 0.82 and Brier scores of 0.16 and 0.17 in the derivation and test cohorts, respectively. In the final model, a range of variables, including blood tests, care, patient background, procedures, and clinical variances, were associated with PLOS. Among these, particular emphasis was placed on clinical variances. Counterfactual analysis using the ridge regression model identified 6 key variables strongly linked to PLOS. In order of impact, these were abnormal respiratory sounds, postoperative fever, arrhythmia, impaired ambulation, complications after drain removal, and pulmonary air leaks. CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning-based model using ePath data effectively identified critical variances in the clinical pathways associated with PLOS. This automated tool may enhance clinical decision-making and improve patient management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207