↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of predictive modeling approaches for 30-day all-cause non-elective readmission risk

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of predictive modeling approaches for 30-day all-cause non-elective readmission risk
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0128-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liping Tong, Cole Erdmann, Marina Daldalian, Jing Li, Tina Esposito

Abstract

This paper explores the importance of electronic medical records (EMR) for predicting 30-day all-cause non-elective readmission risk of patients and presents a comparison of prediction performance of commonly used methods. The data are extracted from eight Advocate Health Care hospitals. Index admissions are excluded from the cohort if they are observation, inpatient admissions for psychiatry, skilled nursing, hospice, rehabilitation, maternal and newborn visits, or if the patient expires during the index admission. Data are randomly and repeatedly divided into fitting and validating sets for cross validations. Approaches including LACE, STEPWISE logistic, LASSO logistic, and AdaBoost, are compared with sample sizes varying from 2,500 to 80,000. Our results confirm that LACE has moderate discrimination power with the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) around 0.65-0.66, which can be improved to 0.73-0.74 when additional variables from EMR are considered. These variables include Inpatient in the last six months, Number of emergency room visits or inpatients in the last year, Braden score, Polypharmacy, Employment status, Discharge disposition, Albumin level, and medical condition variables such as Leukemia, Malignancy, Renal failure with hemodialysis, History of alcohol substance abuse, Dementia and Trauma. When sample size is small (≤5000), LASSO is the best; when sample size is large (≥20,000), the predictive performance is similar. The STEPWISE method has a slightly lower AUC (0.734) comparing to LASSO (0.737) and AdaBoost (0.737). More than one half of the selected predictors can be false positives when using a single method and a single division of fitting/validating data. True predictors can be identified by repeatedly dividing data into fitting/validating subsets and referring the final model based on summarizing results. LASSO is a better alternative to the STEPWISE logistic regression, especially when sample size is not large. The evidence for adequate sample size can be explored by fitting models on gradually reduced samples. Our model comparison strategy is not only good for 30-day all-cause non-elective readmission risk predictions, but also applicable to other types of predictive models in clinical studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 150 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 15%
Researcher 23 15%
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Other 11 7%
Other 30 20%
Unknown 32 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 12%
Psychology 10 7%
Computer Science 9 6%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 41 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2016.
All research outputs
#3,289,255
of 23,782,909 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#516
of 2,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,230
of 299,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#10
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,782,909 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,093 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,208 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.