Back

Comparison of machine-learning and logistic regression models to predict 30-day unplanned readmission: a development and validation study

Iwagami, M.; Inokuchi, R.; Kawakami, E.; Yamada, T.; Goto, A.; Kuno, T.; Hashimoto, Y.; Michihata, N.; Goto, T.; Shinozaki, T.; Sun, Y.; Taniguchi, Y.; Komiyama, J.; Uda, K.; Abe, T.; Tamiya, N.

2023-05-11 epidemiology
10.1101/2023.05.06.23289569 medRxiv
Show abstract

We compared the predictive performance of gradient-boosted decision tree (GBDT), random forest (RF), deep neural network (DNN), and logistic regression (LR) with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) for 30-day unplanned readmission, according to the number of predictor variables and presence/absence of blood-test results. We used electronic health records of patients discharged alive from 38 hospitals in 2015-2017 for derivation (n=339,513) and in 2018 for validation (n=118,074), including basic characteristics (age, sex, admission diagnosis category, number of hospitalizations in the past year, discharge location), diagnosis, surgery, procedure, and drug codes, and blood-test results. We created six patterns of datasets having different numbers of binary variables (that [≥]5% or [≥]1% of patients or [≥]10 patients had) with and without blood-test results. For the dataset with the smallest number of variables (102), the c-statistic was highest for GBDT (0.740), followed by RF (0.734), LR-LASSO (0.720), and DNN (0.664). For the dataset with the largest number of variables (1543), the c-statistic was highest for GBDT (0.764), followed by LR-LASSO (0.755), RF (0.751), and DNN (0.720). We found that GBDT generally outperformed LR-LASSO, but the difference became smaller when the number of variables was increased and blood-test results were used.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.