Identifying low acuity Emergency Department visits with a machine learning approach: The low acuity visit algorithms (LAVA)

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-03-30 DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.14305
Angela T. Chen MA, Richard S. Kuzma MPP, Ari B. Friedman MD, PhD
{"title":"Identifying low acuity Emergency Department visits with a machine learning approach: The low acuity visit algorithms (LAVA)","authors":"Angela T. Chen MA,&nbsp;Richard S. Kuzma MPP,&nbsp;Ari B. Friedman MD, PhD","doi":"10.1111/1475-6773.14305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To improve the performance of International Classification of Disease (ICD) code rule-based algorithms for identifying low acuity Emergency Department (ED) visits by using machine learning methods and additional covariates.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Sources</h3>\n \n <p>We used secondary data on ED visits from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Survey (NHAMCS), from 2016 to 2020.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Study Design</h3>\n \n <p>We established baseline performance metrics with seven published algorithms consisting of International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision codes used to identify low acuity ED visits. We then trained logistic regression, random forest, and gradient boosting (XGBoost) models to predict low acuity ED visits. Each model was trained on five different covariate sets of demographic and clinical data. Model performance was compared using a separate validation dataset. The primary performance metric was the probability that a visit identified by an algorithm as low acuity did not experience significant testing, treatment, or disposition (positive predictive value, PPV). Subgroup analyses assessed model performance across age, sex, and race/ethnicity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Collection</h3>\n \n <p>We used 2016–2019 NHAMCS data as the training set and 2020 NHAMCS data for validation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Principal Findings</h3>\n \n <p>The training and validation data consisted of 53,074 and 9542 observations, respectively. Among seven rule-based algorithms, the highest-performing had a PPV of 0.35 (95% CI [0.33, 0.36]). All model-based algorithms outperformed existing algorithms, with the least effective—random forest using only age and sex—improving PPV by 26% (up to 0.44; 95% CI [0.40, 0.48]). Logistic regression and XGBoost trained on all variables improved PPV by 83% (to 0.64; 95% CI [0.62, 0.66]). Multivariable models also demonstrated higher PPV across all three demographic subgroups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Machine learning models substantially outperform existing algorithms based on ICD codes in predicting low acuity ED visits. Variations in model performance across demographic groups highlight the need for further research to ensure their applicability and fairness across diverse populations.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55065,"journal":{"name":"Health Services Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1475-6773.14305","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-6773.14305","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To improve the performance of International Classification of Disease (ICD) code rule-based algorithms for identifying low acuity Emergency Department (ED) visits by using machine learning methods and additional covariates.

Data Sources

We used secondary data on ED visits from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Survey (NHAMCS), from 2016 to 2020.

Study Design

We established baseline performance metrics with seven published algorithms consisting of International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision codes used to identify low acuity ED visits. We then trained logistic regression, random forest, and gradient boosting (XGBoost) models to predict low acuity ED visits. Each model was trained on five different covariate sets of demographic and clinical data. Model performance was compared using a separate validation dataset. The primary performance metric was the probability that a visit identified by an algorithm as low acuity did not experience significant testing, treatment, or disposition (positive predictive value, PPV). Subgroup analyses assessed model performance across age, sex, and race/ethnicity.

Data Collection

We used 2016–2019 NHAMCS data as the training set and 2020 NHAMCS data for validation.

Principal Findings

The training and validation data consisted of 53,074 and 9542 observations, respectively. Among seven rule-based algorithms, the highest-performing had a PPV of 0.35 (95% CI [0.33, 0.36]). All model-based algorithms outperformed existing algorithms, with the least effective—random forest using only age and sex—improving PPV by 26% (up to 0.44; 95% CI [0.40, 0.48]). Logistic regression and XGBoost trained on all variables improved PPV by 83% (to 0.64; 95% CI [0.62, 0.66]). Multivariable models also demonstrated higher PPV across all three demographic subgroups.

Conclusions

Machine learning models substantially outperform existing algorithms based on ICD codes in predicting low acuity ED visits. Variations in model performance across demographic groups highlight the need for further research to ensure their applicability and fairness across diverse populations.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用机器学习方法识别急诊科低危就诊者:低危急值就诊算法(LAVA)。
目的通过使用机器学习方法和额外的协变量,提高基于国际疾病分类(ICD)代码规则的算法的性能,以识别急诊科(ED)就诊率低的情况:研究设计:我们使用七种已发布的算法建立了基线性能指标,这些算法由《国际疾病分类》第十版代码组成,用于识别急诊室就诊的低敏锐度患者。然后,我们训练了逻辑回归、随机森林和梯度提升 (XGBoost) 模型来预测低敏锐度急诊就诊情况。每个模型都是根据人口统计学和临床数据的五个不同协变量集进行训练的。使用单独的验证数据集对模型性能进行了比较。主要性能指标是被算法识别为低敏锐度的就诊者未接受重要检查、治疗或处置的概率(阳性预测值,PPV)。分组分析评估了不同年龄、性别和种族/民族的模型性能:我们使用2016-2019年NHAMCS数据作为训练集,2020年NHAMCS数据作为验证集:训练数据和验证数据分别包含 53074 个和 9542 个观测值。在七种基于规则的算法中,表现最好的算法的PPV为0.35(95% CI [0.33,0.36])。所有基于模型的算法都优于现有算法,其中效果最差的算法--仅使用年龄和性别的随机森林--将 PPV 提高了 26%(高达 0.44;95% CI [0.40,0.48])。根据所有变量训练的逻辑回归和 XGBoost 使 PPV 提高了 83%(达到 0.64;95% CI [0.62,0.66])。多变量模型在所有三个人口统计亚组中也显示出更高的 PPV:结论:机器学习模型在预测急诊室低急诊就诊率方面大大优于基于 ICD 代码的现有算法。模型在不同人群中的表现差异凸显了进一步研究的必要性,以确保其在不同人群中的适用性和公平性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Services Research
Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
193
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Services Research (HSR) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that provides researchers and public and private policymakers with the latest research findings, methods, and concepts related to the financing, organization, delivery, evaluation, and outcomes of health services. Rated as one of the top journals in the fields of health policy and services and health care administration, HSR publishes outstanding articles reporting the findings of original investigations that expand knowledge and understanding of the wide-ranging field of health care and that will help to improve the health of individuals and communities.
期刊最新文献
International comparison of hospitalizations and emergency department visits related to mental health conditions across high-income countries before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Aligning quality improvement, research, and health system goals using the QUERI priority-setting process: A step forward in creating a learning health system. Bridging borders: Current trends and future directions in comparative health systems research. Hospital-physician integration and Medicare spending: Evidence from stable angina. Health system resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative analysis of disruptions in care from 32 countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1