51
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article
      , MS, PhD 1 , , , PhD 1 , , MD, MPH 2 , , PhD 3 , , MD, ScD 1
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Can prediction of patient outcomes in heart failure based on routinely collected claims data be improved with machine learning methods and incorporating linked electronic medical records?

          Findings

          In this prognostic study including records on 9502 patients, machine learning methods offered only limited improvement over logistic regression in predicting key outcomes in heart failure based on administrative claims. Inclusion of additional predictors from electronic medical records improved prediction for mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and loss in home days but not for high cost.

          Meaning

          Models based on claims-only predictors may achieve modest discrimination and accuracy in prediction of key patient outcomes in heart failure, and machine learning approaches and incorporation of additional predictors from electronic medical records may offer some improvement in risk prediction of select outcomes.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Accurate risk stratification of patients with heart failure (HF) is critical to deploy targeted interventions aimed at improving patients’ quality of life and outcomes.

          Objectives

          To compare machine learning approaches with traditional logistic regression in predicting key outcomes in patients with HF and evaluate the added value of augmenting claims-based predictive models with electronic medical record (EMR)–derived information.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          A prognostic study with a 1-year follow-up period was conducted including 9502 Medicare-enrolled patients with HF from 2 health care provider networks in Boston, Massachusetts (“providers” includes physicians, clinicians, other health care professionals, and their institutions that comprise the networks). The study was performed from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2014; data were analyzed from January 1 to December 31, 2018.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          All-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, top cost decile, and home days loss greater than 25% were modeled using logistic regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operation regression, classification and regression trees, random forests, and gradient-boosted modeling (GBM). All models were trained using data from network 1 and tested in network 2. After selecting the most efficient modeling approach based on discrimination, Brier score, and calibration, area under precision-recall curves (AUPRCs) and net benefit estimates from decision curves were calculated to focus on the differences when using claims-only vs claims + EMR predictors.

          Results

          A total of 9502 patients with HF with a mean (SD) age of 78 (8) years were included: 6113 from network 1 (training set) and 3389 from network 2 (testing set). Gradient-boosted modeling consistently provided the highest discrimination, lowest Brier scores, and good calibration across all 4 outcomes; however, logistic regression had generally similar performance (C statistics for logistic regression based on claims-only predictors: mortality, 0.724; 95% CI, 0.705-0.744; HF hospitalization, 0.707; 95% CI, 0.676-0.737; high cost, 0.734; 95% CI, 0.703-0.764; and home days loss claims only, 0.781; 95% CI, 0.764-0.798; C statistics for GBM: mortality, 0.727; 95% CI, 0.708-0.747; HF hospitalization, 0.745; 95% CI, 0.718-0.772; high cost, 0.733; 95% CI, 0.703-0.763; and home days loss, 0.790; 95% CI, 0.773-0.807). Higher AUPRCs were obtained for claims + EMR vs claims-only GBMs predicting mortality (0.484 vs 0.423), HF hospitalization (0.413 vs 0.403), and home time loss (0.575 vs 0.521) but not cost (0.249 vs 0.252). The net benefit for claims + EMR vs claims-only GBMs was higher at various threshold probabilities for mortality and home time loss outcomes but similar for the other 2 outcomes.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Machine learning methods offered only limited improvement over traditional logistic regression in predicting key HF outcomes. Inclusion of additional predictors from EMRs to claims-based models appeared to improve prediction for some, but not all, outcomes.

          Abstract

          This prognostic study compares several machine learning approaches with traditional logistic regression for development of predictive models for all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, high cost, and loss in home time, among patients with heart failure.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Random Forests

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Comparing the Areas under Two or More Correlated Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves: A Nonparametric Approach

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2018 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                10 January 2020
                January 2020
                10 January 2020
                : 3
                : 1
                : e1918962
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [2 ]Heart and Vascular Center, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [3 ]Market Access, Bayer AG, Wuppertal, Germany
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: November 14, 2019.
                Published: January 10, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18962
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License. © 2020 Desai RJ et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Rishi J. Desai, MS, PhD, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont St, Ste 3030-R, Boston, MA 02120 ( rdesai@ 123456bwh.harvard.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Desai had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Desai, Evers, Schneeweiss.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Desai.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Desai.
                Obtained funding: Desai, Evers, Schneeweiss.
                Supervision: Wang, Evers, Schneeweiss.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Wang reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study, and receiving grants from Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. Dr Vaduganathan reported receiving grants from the KL2/Catalyst Medical Research Investigator Training award from Harvard Catalyst and serving on paid advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Relypsa outside the submitted work. Dr Evers reported receiving personal fees from Bayer AG during the conduct of the study. Dr Schneeweiss reported receiving grants from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Genentech during the conduct of the study; and receiving personal fees from WHISCON LLC and Aetion Co outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by an investigator-initiated research grant from Bayer AG.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The study was conducted by the authors independent of the sponsor. Dr Evers, who is employed by Bayer, participated in preparation and review of the manuscript but had no role in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Funders had no role in design and conduct of the study or in collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data.
                Article
                PMC6991258 PMC6991258 6991258 zoi190713
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18962
                6991258
                31922560
                bebd2507-d3e7-4420-a318-9cd7eda66bf8
                Copyright 2020 Desai RJ et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License.

                History
                : 20 August 2019
                : 14 November 2019
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Cardiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article