Comparison of Chart Review and Administrative Data in Developing Predictive Models for Readmissions in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Sukarn Chokkara, Michael G Hermsen, Matthew Bonomo, Samuel Kaskovich, Maximilian J Hemmrich, Kyle A Carey, Laura Ruth Venable, Juan C Rojas, Matthew M Churpek, Valerie G Press
{"title":"Comparison of Chart Review and Administrative Data in Developing Predictive Models for Readmissions in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.","authors":"Sukarn Chokkara, Michael G Hermsen, Matthew Bonomo, Samuel Kaskovich, Maximilian J Hemmrich, Kyle A Carey, Laura Ruth Venable, Juan C Rojas, Matthew M Churpek, Valerie G Press","doi":"10.15326/jcopdf.2024.0542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to evaluate the performance of machine learning models for predicting readmission of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on administrative data and chart review data. The study analyzed 4327 patient encounters from the University of Chicago Medicine to assess the risk of readmission within 90 days after an acute exacerbation of COPD. Two random forest prediction models were compared. One was derived from chart review data, while the other was derived using administrative data. The data were randomly partitioned into training and internal validation sets using a 70% to 30% split. The 2 models had comparable accuracy (administrative data area under the curve [AUC]=0.67, chart review AUC=0.64). These results suggest that despite its limitations in precisely identifying COPD admissions, administrative data may be useful for developing effective predictive tools and offer a less labor-intensive alternative to chart reviews.</p>","PeriodicalId":51340,"journal":{"name":"Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases-Journal of the Copd Foundation","volume":" ","pages":"175-183"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12147824/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases-Journal of the Copd Foundation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15326/jcopdf.2024.0542","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the performance of machine learning models for predicting readmission of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on administrative data and chart review data. The study analyzed 4327 patient encounters from the University of Chicago Medicine to assess the risk of readmission within 90 days after an acute exacerbation of COPD. Two random forest prediction models were compared. One was derived from chart review data, while the other was derived using administrative data. The data were randomly partitioned into training and internal validation sets using a 70% to 30% split. The 2 models had comparable accuracy (administrative data area under the curve [AUC]=0.67, chart review AUC=0.64). These results suggest that despite its limitations in precisely identifying COPD admissions, administrative data may be useful for developing effective predictive tools and offer a less labor-intensive alternative to chart reviews.

慢性阻塞性肺疾病再入院预测模型的图表回顾与管理数据比较。
本研究旨在评估基于行政数据和图表回顾数据预测慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者再入院的机器学习模型的性能。该研究分析了来自芝加哥大学医学院的4327名患者,以评估慢性阻塞性肺病急性加重后90天内再入院的风险。比较了两种随机森林预测模型。一个是从图表审查数据中得出的,而另一个是从管理数据中得出的。使用70%/30%的分割将数据随机划分为训练集和内部验证集。两种模型具有相当的准确性(管理数据AUC = 0.67,图表回顾AUC = 0.64)。这些结果表明,尽管在精确识别COPD入院方面存在局限性,但行政数据可能有助于开发有效的预测工具,并为图表审查提供更少劳动密集型的替代方案。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
45
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信