Nishant Sahni1, Gyorgy Simon2, Rashi Arora3. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. nishant.sahni@gmail.com. 2. Institute of Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Predicting death in a cohort of clinically diverse, multicondition hospitalized patients is difficult. Prognostic models that use electronic medical record (EMR) data to determine 1-year death risk can improve end-of-life planning and risk adjustment for research. OBJECTIVE: Determine if the final set of demographic, vital sign, and laboratory data from a hospitalization can be used to accurately quantify 1-year mortality risk. DESIGN: A retrospective study using electronic medical record data linked with the state death registry. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 59,848 hospitalized patients within a six-hospital network over a 4-year period. MAIN MEASURES: The last set of vital signs, complete blood count, basic and complete metabolic panel, demographic information, and ICD codes. The outcome of interest was death within 1 year. KEY RESULTS: Model performance was measured on the validation data set. Random forests (RF) outperformed logisitic regression (LR) models in discriminative ability. An RF model that used the final set of demographic, vitals, and laboratory data from the final 48 h of hospitalization had an AUC of 0.86 (0.85-0.87) for predicting death within a year. Age, blood urea nitrogen, platelet count, hemoglobin, and creatinine were the most important variables in the RF model. Models that used comorbidity variables alone had the lowest AUC. In groups of patients with a high probability of death, RF models underestimated the probability by less than 10%. CONCLUSION: The last set of EMR data from a hospitalization can be used to accurately estimate the risk of 1-year mortality within a cohort of multicondition hospitalized patients.
BACKGROUND: Predicting death in a cohort of clinically diverse, multicondition hospitalized patients is difficult. Prognostic models that use electronic medical record (EMR) data to determine 1-year death risk can improve end-of-life planning and risk adjustment for research. OBJECTIVE: Determine if the final set of demographic, vital sign, and laboratory data from a hospitalization can be used to accurately quantify 1-year mortality risk. DESIGN: A retrospective study using electronic medical record data linked with the state death registry. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 59,848 hospitalized patients within a six-hospital network over a 4-year period. MAIN MEASURES: The last set of vital signs, complete blood count, basic and complete metabolic panel, demographic information, and ICD codes. The outcome of interest was death within 1 year. KEY RESULTS: Model performance was measured on the validation data set. Random forests (RF) outperformed logisitic regression (LR) models in discriminative ability. An RF model that used the final set of demographic, vitals, and laboratory data from the final 48 h of hospitalization had an AUC of 0.86 (0.85-0.87) for predicting death within a year. Age, blood ureanitrogen, platelet count, hemoglobin, and creatinine were the most important variables in the RF model. Models that used comorbidity variables alone had the lowest AUC. In groups of patients with a high probability of death, RF models underestimated the probability by less than 10%. CONCLUSION: The last set of EMR data from a hospitalization can be used to accurately estimate the risk of 1-year mortality within a cohort of multicondition hospitalized patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
data mining; hospital outcomes; machine learning; predictive models
Authors: Oanh Kieu Nguyen; Anil N Makam; Christopher Clark; Song Zhang; Bin Xie; Ferdinand Velasco; Ruben Amarasingham; Ethan A Halm Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Gabriel J Escobar; John D Greene; Peter Scheirer; Marla N Gardner; David Draper; Patricia Kipnis Journal: Med Care Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: John J You; James Downar; Robert A Fowler; François Lamontagne; Irene W Y Ma; Dev Jayaraman; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Patricia H Strachan; Roy Ilan; Aman P Nijjar; John Neary; John Shik; Kevin Brazil; Amen Patel; Kim Wiebe; Martin Albert; Anita Palepu; Elysée Nouvet; Amanda Roze des Ordons; Nishan Sharma; Amane Abdul-Razzak; Xuran Jiang; Andrew Day; Daren K Heyland Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Mark Alan Fontana; Stephen Lyman; Gourab K Sarker; Douglas E Padgett; Catherine H MacLean Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: William P T M van Doorn; Patricia M Stassen; Hella F Borggreve; Maaike J Schalkwijk; Judith Stoffers; Otto Bekers; Steven J R Meex Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Katherine R Courtright; Corey Chivers; Michael Becker; Susan H Regli; Linnea C Pepper; Michael E Draugelis; Nina R O'Connor Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ravi B Parikh; Christopher R Manz; Maria N Nelson; Chalanda N Evans; Susan H Regli; Nina O'Connor; Lynn M Schuchter; Lawrence N Shulman; Mitesh S Patel; Joanna Paladino; Judy A Shea Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rajiv Agarwal; Henry J Domenico; Sreenivasa R Balla; Daniel W Byrne; Jennifer G Whisenant; Marcella C Woods; Barbara J Martin; Mohana B Karlekar; Marc L Bennett Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 5.576
Authors: Ravi B Parikh; Christopher Manz; Corey Chivers; Susan Harkness Regli; Jennifer Braun; Michael E Draugelis; Lynn M Schuchter; Lawrence N Shulman; Amol S Navathe; Mitesh S Patel; Nina R O'Connor Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-10-02