Machine learning for sub-population assessment: evaluating the C-section rate of different physician practices.

Proceedings. AMIA Symposium Pub Date : 2002-01-01
Rich Caruana, Radu S Niculescu, R Bharat Rao, Cynthia Simms
{"title":"Machine learning for sub-population assessment: evaluating the C-section rate of different physician practices.","authors":"Rich Caruana,&nbsp;Radu S Niculescu,&nbsp;R Bharat Rao,&nbsp;Cynthia Simms","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We apply machine learning to the problem of subpopulation assessment for Caesarian Section. In subpopulation assessment, we are interested in making predictions not for a single patient, but for groups of patients. Typically, in any large population, different subpopulations will have different \"outcome\" rates. In our example, the C-section rate of a population of 22,176 expectant mothers is 16.8%; yet, the 17 physician groups that serve this population have vastly different group C-section rates, ranging from 11% to 23%. The ultimate goal of subpopulation assessment is to determine if these variations in the observed rates can be attributed to (a) variations in intrinsic risk of the patient sub-populations (i.e. some groups contain more \"high-risk C-section\" patients), or (b) differences in physician practice (i.e. some groups do more C-sections). Our results indicate that although there is some variation in intrinsic risk, there is also much variation in physician practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":79712,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings. AMIA Symposium","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2244521/pdf/procamiasymp00001-0167.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings. AMIA Symposium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We apply machine learning to the problem of subpopulation assessment for Caesarian Section. In subpopulation assessment, we are interested in making predictions not for a single patient, but for groups of patients. Typically, in any large population, different subpopulations will have different "outcome" rates. In our example, the C-section rate of a population of 22,176 expectant mothers is 16.8%; yet, the 17 physician groups that serve this population have vastly different group C-section rates, ranging from 11% to 23%. The ultimate goal of subpopulation assessment is to determine if these variations in the observed rates can be attributed to (a) variations in intrinsic risk of the patient sub-populations (i.e. some groups contain more "high-risk C-section" patients), or (b) differences in physician practice (i.e. some groups do more C-sections). Our results indicate that although there is some variation in intrinsic risk, there is also much variation in physician practice.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
亚人群评估的机器学习:评估不同医师实践的剖腹产率。
我们将机器学习应用于剖宫产的亚群评估问题。在亚人群评估中,我们感兴趣的不是对单个患者进行预测,而是对患者群体进行预测。通常,在任何大群体中,不同的亚群体会有不同的“结果”率。在我们的例子中,22176名孕妇的剖腹产率为16.8%;然而,为这一人群服务的17个医生小组的剖腹产率却大不相同,从11%到23%不等。亚群体评估的最终目标是确定观察到的这些比率的变化是否可以归因于(a)患者亚群体内在风险的变化(即某些群体包含更多的“高危剖腹产”患者),或(b)医生实践的差异(即某些群体更多的剖腹产)。我们的研究结果表明,尽管内在风险存在一些差异,但在医生实践中也存在很大差异。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Electronic Patient Record Medical informatics as a market for IS/IT Perceived Information Needs and Communication Difficulties of Inpatient Physicians and Nurses Disambiguation Data: Extracting Information from Anonymized Sources The Operating Room Charge Nurse: Coordinator and Communicator
×
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