Responsible AI for Predicting Delayed Hospital Discharge Among Older Adults: Development and Evaluation Study for Balancing Accuracy, Equity, and Explainability (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Amid growing demands and constrained health care resources, effective hospital bed capacity management is crucial. Delayed hospital discharge, where patients remain in the hospital beyond the need for acute care, strains resources, affects patient outcomes, and reduces system efficiency. Predicting such delays facilitates early interventions to avert them and alleviate burdens on patients, care partners, hospitals, and the broader health care system. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> This study aimed to develop comprehensive predictive analytics for delayed discharges among older adults using explainable machine learning to boost transparency and interpretability, while integrating fairness to mitigate algorithmic biases. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> Leveraging longitudinal data from over 2 decades in Ontario, Canada, we applied extreme gradient boosting and logistic regression models to predict delayed discharges within 90 days post–acute care. Data preprocessing included a 2-year look-back for clinical histories and balanced sampling to address class imbalance. Model performance was assessed via area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration, and clinical utility. Fairness was evaluated across sex, urban or rural residence, and residential instability using several threshold-free metrics. Explainability was examined at the global model level (via partial dependence plots and permutation feature importance) and locally (via Shapley Additive Explanations, breakdown, and ceteris paribus methods), with principal component analysis used to cluster key features for high-risk patients. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> The extreme gradient boosting model outperformed logistic regression, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82 on the test set, with acceptable within-group and cross-group ranking fairness across subgroups. Explainability clustering analyses identified functional and cognitive declines (eg, care support needs, dementia, and mobility issues) and regional disparities as primary drivers of high-risk predictions. Bias mitigation improved calibration parity, especially when stratifying by residential instability, underscoring the trade-offs policymakers must weigh between accuracy, fairness, and explainability. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> This study demonstrates the potential of responsible artificial intelligence in health care, emphasizing the need to balance predictive accuracy, equity, and interpretability. It uncovers systemic gaps and offers actionable insights for enhanced discharge planning, resource optimization, and equitable care delivery. </sec>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".