Comparing deep learning and classical regression approaches for predicting healthcare expenditure and spending: a systematic review.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Medical Economics Pub Date : 2026-12-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-04 DOI:10.1080/13696998.2026.2630598
John Tayu Lee, Melody Hsiao-San Yeh, Vincent Cheng-Sheng Li, Hsiao-Hui Chen, Yi-Hsuan Liu, Yu-Chun Chen, David Bin-Chia Wu
{"title":"Comparing deep learning and classical regression approaches for predicting healthcare expenditure and spending: a systematic review.","authors":"John Tayu Lee, Melody Hsiao-San Yeh, Vincent Cheng-Sheng Li, Hsiao-Hui Chen, Yi-Hsuan Liu, Yu-Chun Chen, David Bin-Chia Wu","doi":"10.1080/13696998.2026.2630598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study compares deep learning architectures with traditional regression and tree-based models for individual-level healthcare cost prediction, with particular attention to performance differences across data contexts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a preregistered systematic review (PROSPERO CRD420251129440). Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched through August 2025. Eligible studies used real-world individual-level data (claims, electronic health records, or registries) to predict cost-related outcomes with at least one deep learning architecture and one classical regression comparator, and reported quantitative performance. Data were extracted on population, predictors, outcome horizon, model type, validation strategy, performance metrics, calibration, and interpretability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies met inclusion criteria, spanning the United States, Europe, and Asia. In longitudinal designs-such as multi-year claims prediction and medication or hospitalization time-series forecasting-sequential deep learning models, particularly LSTM and CNN-LSTM hybrids, consistently outperformed regression and tree-based algorithms. Reported gains included approximately 10-20% reductions in RMSE/MAE, R<sup>2</sup> improvements of 0.01-0.15, and AUROC values up to 0.78 for high-risk classification. Across studies, prior costs and utilization were consistently the strongest predictors, while social determinants and free-text features were rarely incorporated. In contrast, for low-dimensional, structured, cross-sectional medical data, generalized linear models and tree-based approaches remain robust baseline models due to their interpretability and calibration stability.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Evidence is based on a small and heterogeneous set of eight studies, with limited external or temporal validation, short prediction horizons, and sparse assessment of calibration, economic interpretability, and fairness, warranting cautious interpretation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Deep learning offers clear gains for longitudinal, sequence-rich cost forecasting, whereas tree-based methods remain highly competitive for cross-sectional tabular prediction. Overall, these findings are consistent with the proposed Complexity-Performance Hypothesis, which posits that the predictive advantages of deep learning emerge primarily when model capacity is well matched to data complexity.</p>","PeriodicalId":16229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Economics","volume":"29 1","pages":"654-671"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2026.2630598","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: This study compares deep learning architectures with traditional regression and tree-based models for individual-level healthcare cost prediction, with particular attention to performance differences across data contexts.

Methods: We conducted a preregistered systematic review (PROSPERO CRD420251129440). Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched through August 2025. Eligible studies used real-world individual-level data (claims, electronic health records, or registries) to predict cost-related outcomes with at least one deep learning architecture and one classical regression comparator, and reported quantitative performance. Data were extracted on population, predictors, outcome horizon, model type, validation strategy, performance metrics, calibration, and interpretability.

Results: Eight studies met inclusion criteria, spanning the United States, Europe, and Asia. In longitudinal designs-such as multi-year claims prediction and medication or hospitalization time-series forecasting-sequential deep learning models, particularly LSTM and CNN-LSTM hybrids, consistently outperformed regression and tree-based algorithms. Reported gains included approximately 10-20% reductions in RMSE/MAE, R2 improvements of 0.01-0.15, and AUROC values up to 0.78 for high-risk classification. Across studies, prior costs and utilization were consistently the strongest predictors, while social determinants and free-text features were rarely incorporated. In contrast, for low-dimensional, structured, cross-sectional medical data, generalized linear models and tree-based approaches remain robust baseline models due to their interpretability and calibration stability.

Limitations: Evidence is based on a small and heterogeneous set of eight studies, with limited external or temporal validation, short prediction horizons, and sparse assessment of calibration, economic interpretability, and fairness, warranting cautious interpretation.

Conclusions: Deep learning offers clear gains for longitudinal, sequence-rich cost forecasting, whereas tree-based methods remain highly competitive for cross-sectional tabular prediction. Overall, these findings are consistent with the proposed Complexity-Performance Hypothesis, which posits that the predictive advantages of deep learning emerge primarily when model capacity is well matched to data complexity.

比较深度学习和经典回归方法预测医疗保健支出和支出:系统回顾。
目的:本研究将深度学习架构与传统回归和基于树的模型进行比较,用于个人层面的医疗保健成本预测,并特别关注数据上下文之间的性能差异。方法:我们进行了一项预注册系统评价(PROSPERO CRD420251129440)。Web of Science、PubMed、Embase和Scopus的检索截止到2025年8月。符合条件的研究使用真实世界的个人数据(索赔、电子健康记录或注册表),通过至少一个深度学习架构和一个经典回归比较器预测与成本相关的结果,并报告定量表现。从人口、预测因子、结果视界、模型类型、验证策略、性能指标、校准和可解释性等方面提取数据。结果:8项研究符合纳入标准,涵盖美国、欧洲和亚洲。在纵向设计中,例如多年索赔预测和药物或住院时间序列预测,序列深度学习模型,特别是LSTM和CNN-LSTM混合模型,始终优于回归和基于树的算法。报告的收益包括RMSE/MAE降低约10-20%,R2改善0.01-0.15,高风险分类的AUROC值高达0.78。在所有研究中,先前的成本和利用一直是最强的预测因素,而社会决定因素和自由文本特征很少被纳入。相比之下,对于低维、结构化、横断面的医疗数据,广义线性模型和基于树的方法由于其可解释性和校准稳定性仍然是稳健的基线模型。局限性:证据基于8项小型且异质性的研究,外部或时间验证有限,预测范围短,校准评估稀疏,经济可解释性和公平性,需要谨慎解释。结论:深度学习为纵向、序列丰富的成本预测提供了明显的优势,而基于树的方法在横断面表格预测中仍然具有很强的竞争力。总的来说,这些发现与提出的复杂性-性能假设是一致的,该假设认为,深度学习的预测优势主要出现在模型能力与数据复杂性相匹配的情况下。
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
Journal of Medical Economics
Journal of Medical Economics HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
122
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Economics'' mission is to provide ethical, unbiased and rapid publication of quality content that is validated by rigorous peer review. The aim of Journal of Medical Economics is to serve the information needs of the pharmacoeconomics and healthcare research community, to help translate research advances into patient care and be a leader in transparency/disclosure by facilitating a collaborative and honest approach to publication. Journal of Medical Economics publishes high-quality economic assessments of novel therapeutic and device interventions for an international audience
×
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
小红书