External validation of the modified LACE+, LACE+, and LACE scores to predict readmission or death after hospital discharge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unplanned hospital readmissions are common adverse events. The LACE+ score has been used to identify patients at the highest risk of unplanned readmission or death, yet the external validity of this score remains uncertain. METHODS: We constructed a cohort of patients admitted to hospital between October 1, 2014 and January 31, 2017 using population-based data from British Columbia (Canada). The primary outcome was a composite of urgent hospital readmission or death within 30 days of index discharge. The primary analysis sought to optimize clinical utility and international generalizability by focusing on the modified LACE+ (mLACE+) score, a variation of the LACE+ score which excludes the Case Mix Group score. Predictive performance was assessed using model calibration and discrimination. RESULTS: Among 368,154 hospitalized individuals, 31,961 (8.7%) were urgently readmitted and 5,428 (1.5%) died within 30 days of index discharge (crude composite risk of readmission or death, 9.95%). The mLACE+ score exhibited excellent calibration (calibration-in-the-large and calibration slope no different than ideal) and adequate discrimination (c-statistic, 0.681; 95%CI, 0.678 to 0.684). Higher risk dichotomized mLACE+ scores were only modestly associated with the primary outcome (positive likelihood ratio 1.95, 95%CI 1.93 to 1.97). Predictive performance of the mLACE+ score was similar to that of the LACE+ and LACE scores. CONCLUSION: The mLACE+, LACE+ and LACE scores predict hospital readmission with excellent calibration and adequate discrimination. These scores can be used to target interventions designed to prevent unplanned hospital readmission.
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 | 0.031 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".