Literature DB >> 36261581

Predicting mortality in the very old: a machine learning analysis on claims data.

Aleksander Krasowski1,2, Joachim Krois1, Adelheid Kuhlmey3, Hendrik Meyer-Lueckel2, Falk Schwendicke4.   

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) may be used to predict mortality. We used claims data from one large German insurer to develop and test differently complex ML prediction models, comparing them for their (balanced) accuracy, but also the importance of different predictors, the relevance of the follow-up period before death (i.e. the amount of accumulated data) and the time distance of the data used for prediction and death. A sample of 373,077 insured very old, aged 75 years or above, living in the Northeast of Germany in 2012 was drawn and followed over 6 years. Our outcome was whether an individual died in one of the years of interest (2013-2017) or not; the primary metric was (balanced) accuracy in a hold-out test dataset. From the 86,326 potential variables, we used the 30 most important ones for modeling. We trained a total of 45 model combinations: (1) Three different ML models were used; logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGB); (2) Different periods of follow-up were employed for training; 1-5 years; (3) Different time distances between data used for prediction and the time of the event (death/survival) were set; 0-4 years. The mortality rate was 9.15% in mean per year. The models showed (balanced) accuracy between 65 and 93%. A longer follow-up period showed limited to no advantage, but models with short time distance from the event were more accurate than models trained on more distant data. RF and XGB were more accurate than LR. For RF and XGB sensitivity and specificity were similar, while for LR sensitivity was significantly lower than specificity. For all three models, the positive-predictive-value was below 62% (and even dropped to below 20% for longer time distances from death), while the negative-predictive-value significantly exceeded 90% for all analyses. The utilization of and costs for emergency transport as well as emergency and any hospital visits as well as the utilization of conventional outpatient care and laboratory services were consistently found most relevant for predicting mortality. All models showed useful accuracies, and more complex models showed advantages. The variables employed for prediction were consistent across models and with medical reasoning. Identifying individuals at risk could assist tailored decision-making and interventions.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36261581      PMCID: PMC9581892          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-21373-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.996


  18 in total

Review 1.  Which risk-adjustment index performs better in predicting 30-day mortality? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mo Yang; Hemalkumar B Mehta; Vishal Bali; Parul Gupta; Xin Wang; Michael L Johnson; Rajender R Aparasu
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 2.431

Review 2.  A machine learning approach for mortality prediction only using non-invasive parameters.

Authors:  Guang Zhang; JiaMeng Xu; Ming Yu; Jing Yuan; Feng Chen
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Misclassification in administrative claims data: quantifying the impact on treatment effect estimates.

Authors:  Michele Jonsson Funk; Suzanne N Landi
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2014-12

4.  Development and Validation of Machine Learning Models for Prediction of 1-Year Mortality Utilizing Electronic Medical Record Data Available at the End of Hospitalization in Multicondition Patients: a Proof-of-Concept Study.

Authors:  Nishant Sahni; Gyorgy Simon; Rashi Arora
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Comparative Effectiveness of New Approaches to Improve Mortality Risk Models From Medicare Claims Data.

Authors:  Harlan M Krumholz; Andreas C Coppi; Frederick Warner; Elizabeth W Triche; Shu-Xia Li; Shiwani Mahajan; Yixin Li; Susannah M Bernheim; Jacqueline Grady; Karen Dorsey; Zhenqiu Lin; Sharon-Lise T Normand
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-07-03

6.  Comparison of Machine Learning Methods With Traditional Models for Use of Administrative Claims With Electronic Medical Records to Predict Heart Failure Outcomes.

Authors:  Rishi J Desai; Shirley V Wang; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Thomas Evers; Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-01-03

7.  Prognostic role of artificial intelligence among patients with hepatocellular cancer: A systematic review.

Authors:  Quirino Lai; Gabriele Spoletini; Gianluca Mennini; Zoe Larghi Laureiro; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Timothy Michael Pawlik; Massimo Rossi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-11-14       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Mortality Risk Models for Persons with Dementia: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Eric E Smith; Zahinoor Ismail
Journal:  J Alzheimers Dis       Date:  2021       Impact factor: 4.472

9.  The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement.

Authors:  Eric I Benchimol; Liam Smeeth; Astrid Guttmann; Katie Harron; David Moher; Irene Petersen; Henrik T Sørensen; Erik von Elm; Sinéad M Langan
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Underscreening and undertreatment? Periodontal service provision in very old Germans.

Authors:  Joachim Krois; Aleksander Krasowski; Jesus Gomez Rossi; Sebastian Paris; Adelheid Kuhlmey; Hendrik Meyer-Lückel; Falk Schwendicke
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 3.573

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.