Linking Geriatric Emergency Departments Using Deterministic and Machine Learning Methods.

IF 2.2 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
International Journal of Population Data Science Pub Date : 2026-07-06 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.23889/ijpds.v11i5.3603
Inessa Cohen, Cameron Gettel, Yuting Qian, Craig Rothenberg, Xi Chen, Ula Hwang
{"title":"Linking Geriatric Emergency Departments Using Deterministic and Machine Learning Methods.","authors":"Inessa Cohen, Cameron Gettel, Yuting Qian, Craig Rothenberg, Xi Chen, Ula Hwang","doi":"10.23889/ijpds.v11i5.3603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Evaluating geriatric emergency department (GED) interventions requires accurate longitudinal identification of GED sites and reliable linkage to hospital-level data, yet identifiers are often incomplete, inconsistent, or change over time. Our objective was to construct longitudinal GED identifiers by reconciling publicly available GED accreditation lists in the United States (US) linked to hospital characteristics in the American Hospital Association (AHA) survey.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>GED accreditation lists were first affirmed as GEDs and newly accredited GEDs using a two-stage fuzzy matching approach blocked by state. Sites were initially matched using hospital name similarity (distance ≤ 0.15), followed by city-based matching for remaining unmatched sites (distance ≤ 0.10). GEDs were then linked 1:1 to the AHA survey by manually assigning the AHAID using name and city. Discrepancies were resolved through multi-reviewer adjudication informed by geographic context, producing a curated reference linkage set of GEDs. In parallel, an XGBoost classifier paired GED sites with AHA hospitals in the same state using similarity features (name, city, teaching, rurality, and year difference) to independently reproduce curated linkages.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 545 US GEDs between 2018-2025, 482 had AHAIDs and 63 were missing. XGBoost reproduced 90% (95% CI: 87.8-92.5%) of curated linkages, with name similarity and city agreement accounting for over 85% of model importance by gain. Common challenges included name changes, system-level identifiers spanning multiple campuses, and accreditation turnover (sites gaining or losing accreditation).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Accurate GED-AHA linkage is achievable, though sensitive to identifier instability, naming variation, and longitudinal changes.</p>","PeriodicalId":36483,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Population Data Science","volume":"11 5","pages":"3603"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13426737/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Population Data Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v11i5.3603","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Evaluating geriatric emergency department (GED) interventions requires accurate longitudinal identification of GED sites and reliable linkage to hospital-level data, yet identifiers are often incomplete, inconsistent, or change over time. Our objective was to construct longitudinal GED identifiers by reconciling publicly available GED accreditation lists in the United States (US) linked to hospital characteristics in the American Hospital Association (AHA) survey.

Approach: GED accreditation lists were first affirmed as GEDs and newly accredited GEDs using a two-stage fuzzy matching approach blocked by state. Sites were initially matched using hospital name similarity (distance ≤ 0.15), followed by city-based matching for remaining unmatched sites (distance ≤ 0.10). GEDs were then linked 1:1 to the AHA survey by manually assigning the AHAID using name and city. Discrepancies were resolved through multi-reviewer adjudication informed by geographic context, producing a curated reference linkage set of GEDs. In parallel, an XGBoost classifier paired GED sites with AHA hospitals in the same state using similarity features (name, city, teaching, rurality, and year difference) to independently reproduce curated linkages.

Results: Among 545 US GEDs between 2018-2025, 482 had AHAIDs and 63 were missing. XGBoost reproduced 90% (95% CI: 87.8-92.5%) of curated linkages, with name similarity and city agreement accounting for over 85% of model importance by gain. Common challenges included name changes, system-level identifiers spanning multiple campuses, and accreditation turnover (sites gaining or losing accreditation).

Conclusions: Accurate GED-AHA linkage is achievable, though sensitive to identifier instability, naming variation, and longitudinal changes.

使用确定性和机器学习方法连接老年急诊科。
目的:评估老年急诊科(GED)干预措施需要对GED地点进行准确的纵向识别,并与医院层面的数据建立可靠的联系,但识别信息往往不完整、不一致或随时间变化。我们的目标是通过协调美国(US)与美国医院协会(AHA)调查中医院特征相关的公开可用的GED认证列表,构建纵向GED标识符。方法:GED认证名单首先被确认为GED和新认证的GED,使用两阶段模糊匹配方法被各州阻止。首先使用医院名称相似度(距离≤0.15)进行匹配,然后对剩余未匹配的站点进行基于城市的匹配(距离≤0.10)。然后,通过使用姓名和城市手动分配aaid,将ged与AHA调查1:1联系起来。差异通过地理背景下的多审稿人评审来解决,产生了一套精心策划的参考链接的普通教育文凭。与此同时,XGBoost分类器使用相似特征(名称、城市、教学、农村和年份差异)将GED站点与同一州的AHA医院配对,以独立地再现策划的联系。结果:在2018-2025年期间的545名美国普通教育生中,482名患有艾滋病,63名缺失。XGBoost再现了90% (95% CI: 87.8-92.5%)的关联,其中名称相似性和城市一致性占模型重要性的85%以上。常见的挑战包括名称更改、跨多个校园的系统级标识符和认证变更(站点获得或失去认证)。结论:准确的GED-AHA连锁是可以实现的,尽管对标识符不稳定性、命名变化和纵向变化敏感。
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
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
386
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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