改进基于诊断的质量措施:机器学习在门诊患者物质使用障碍预测中的应用。

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Katherine J Hoggatt, Alex H S Harris, Corey J Hayes, Donna Washington, Emily C Williams
{"title":"改进基于诊断的质量措施:机器学习在门诊患者物质使用障碍预测中的应用。","authors":"Katherine J Hoggatt, Alex H S Harris, Corey J Hayes, Donna Washington, Emily C Williams","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Substance use disorder (SUD) is clinically under-detected and under-documented. We built and validated machine learning (ML) models to estimate SUD prevalence from electronic health record (EHR) data and to assess variation in facility-level SUD identification using clinically documented diagnoses vs model-based estimated prevalence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Predictors included demographics, SUD-related diagnoses and healthcare utilisation. The criterion outcome for model development was prevalent SUD assessed via a patient survey across 30 geographically representative Veterans Health Administration (VA) sites (n=5989 patients). We split the data into training and testing datasets and built a series of ML models using cross-validation to minimise over-fitting. We selected the final model based on its performance in predicting SUD in the testing dataset. Using the final model, we estimated SUD prevalence at all 30 sites. We then compared facilities based on SUD identification using two alternative SUD identification measures: the facility-level SUD diagnosis rate and model-based estimated SUD prevalence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The best-performing LASSO model with n=61 predictors doubled the sensitivity for classifying SUD relative to a model with only documented SUD diagnoses (0.682 vs 0.331). Across the 30 sites, SUD diagnosis rates ranged from 6.4%-13.9% and predicted SUD prevalence ranged from 9.7-16.0%. The difference in facility-level SUD identification (observed diagnosis rate minus predicted prevalence) ranged from -7.2 to +1.3 percentage points. Comparing facilities' rank ordering on documented SUD diagnosis rates vs estimated SUD prevalence, 16 out of 30 sites had a ranking that changed by at least a quintile (ie, 6 places or more).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This analysis shows that use of model-based performance measures may help address measurement blind spots that arise due to differences in diagnostic accuracy across sites. Although model-based estimates better estimate SUD prevalence relative to diagnoses alone for facility quality assessment, further improvements and individual SUD detection both require enhanced direct screening for non-alcohol drug use.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11931922/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving diagnosis-based quality measures: an application of machine learning to the prediction of substance use disorder among outpatients.\",\"authors\":\"Katherine J Hoggatt, Alex H S Harris, Corey J Hayes, Donna Washington, Emily C Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Substance use disorder (SUD) is clinically under-detected and under-documented. We built and validated machine learning (ML) models to estimate SUD prevalence from electronic health record (EHR) data and to assess variation in facility-level SUD identification using clinically documented diagnoses vs model-based estimated prevalence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Predictors included demographics, SUD-related diagnoses and healthcare utilisation. The criterion outcome for model development was prevalent SUD assessed via a patient survey across 30 geographically representative Veterans Health Administration (VA) sites (n=5989 patients). We split the data into training and testing datasets and built a series of ML models using cross-validation to minimise over-fitting. We selected the final model based on its performance in predicting SUD in the testing dataset. Using the final model, we estimated SUD prevalence at all 30 sites. We then compared facilities based on SUD identification using two alternative SUD identification measures: the facility-level SUD diagnosis rate and model-based estimated SUD prevalence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The best-performing LASSO model with n=61 predictors doubled the sensitivity for classifying SUD relative to a model with only documented SUD diagnoses (0.682 vs 0.331). Across the 30 sites, SUD diagnosis rates ranged from 6.4%-13.9% and predicted SUD prevalence ranged from 9.7-16.0%. The difference in facility-level SUD identification (observed diagnosis rate minus predicted prevalence) ranged from -7.2 to +1.3 percentage points. Comparing facilities' rank ordering on documented SUD diagnosis rates vs estimated SUD prevalence, 16 out of 30 sites had a ranking that changed by at least a quintile (ie, 6 places or more).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This analysis shows that use of model-based performance measures may help address measurement blind spots that arise due to differences in diagnostic accuracy across sites. Although model-based estimates better estimate SUD prevalence relative to diagnoses alone for facility quality assessment, further improvements and individual SUD detection both require enhanced direct screening for non-alcohol drug use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open Quality\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11931922/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open Quality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:物质使用障碍(SUD)在临床上未被发现和记录。我们建立并验证了机器学习(ML)模型,以从电子健康记录(EHR)数据中估计SUD的患病率,并评估使用临床记录诊断与基于模型的估计患病率在设施级别SUD识别方面的差异。方法:预测因素包括人口统计学、sud相关诊断和医疗保健利用。通过对30个具有地理代表性的退伍军人健康管理局(VA)站点(n=5989例患者)的患者调查,评估了模型开发的标准结果为普遍SUD。我们将数据分成训练和测试数据集,并使用交叉验证构建了一系列ML模型,以尽量减少过度拟合。我们根据其在测试数据集中预测SUD的性能选择最终模型。使用最终的模型,我们估计了所有30个站点的SUD患病率。然后,我们比较了基于SUD识别的设施,使用两种可选的SUD识别措施:设施级SUD诊断率和基于模型的SUD估计患病率。结果:与仅记录SUD诊断的模型相比,具有n=61个预测因子的最佳LASSO模型对SUD分类的敏感性提高了一倍(0.682 vs 0.331)。在30个站点中,SUD诊断率为6.4%-13.9%,预测SUD患病率为9.7-16.0%。设施级别SUD鉴定(观察到的诊断率减去预测的患病率)的差异范围为-7.2至+1.3个百分点。比较记录的SUD诊断率与估计的SUD患病率的设施排名顺序,30个站点中有16个站点的排名变化至少五分之一(即6个或更多)。结论:该分析表明,使用基于模型的性能度量可能有助于解决由于不同站点的诊断准确性差异而产生的测量盲点。虽然基于模型的估计比单独诊断更能估计SUD的患病率,但进一步的改进和个体SUD检测都需要加强对非酒精性药物使用的直接筛查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving diagnosis-based quality measures: an application of machine learning to the prediction of substance use disorder among outpatients.

Objective: Substance use disorder (SUD) is clinically under-detected and under-documented. We built and validated machine learning (ML) models to estimate SUD prevalence from electronic health record (EHR) data and to assess variation in facility-level SUD identification using clinically documented diagnoses vs model-based estimated prevalence.

Methods: Predictors included demographics, SUD-related diagnoses and healthcare utilisation. The criterion outcome for model development was prevalent SUD assessed via a patient survey across 30 geographically representative Veterans Health Administration (VA) sites (n=5989 patients). We split the data into training and testing datasets and built a series of ML models using cross-validation to minimise over-fitting. We selected the final model based on its performance in predicting SUD in the testing dataset. Using the final model, we estimated SUD prevalence at all 30 sites. We then compared facilities based on SUD identification using two alternative SUD identification measures: the facility-level SUD diagnosis rate and model-based estimated SUD prevalence.

Results: The best-performing LASSO model with n=61 predictors doubled the sensitivity for classifying SUD relative to a model with only documented SUD diagnoses (0.682 vs 0.331). Across the 30 sites, SUD diagnosis rates ranged from 6.4%-13.9% and predicted SUD prevalence ranged from 9.7-16.0%. The difference in facility-level SUD identification (observed diagnosis rate minus predicted prevalence) ranged from -7.2 to +1.3 percentage points. Comparing facilities' rank ordering on documented SUD diagnosis rates vs estimated SUD prevalence, 16 out of 30 sites had a ranking that changed by at least a quintile (ie, 6 places or more).

Conclusions: This analysis shows that use of model-based performance measures may help address measurement blind spots that arise due to differences in diagnostic accuracy across sites. Although model-based estimates better estimate SUD prevalence relative to diagnoses alone for facility quality assessment, further improvements and individual SUD detection both require enhanced direct screening for non-alcohol drug use.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信