Predicting pressure injury risk in hospitalised patients using machine learning with electronic health records: a US multilevel cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To predict the risk of hospital-acquired pressure injury using machine learning compared with standard care. DESIGN: We obtained electronic health records (EHRs) to structure a multilevel cohort of hospitalised patients at risk for pressure injury and then calibrate a machine learning model to predict future pressure injury risk. Optimisation methods combined with multilevel logistic regression were used to develop a predictive algorithm of patient-specific shifts in risk over time. Machine learning methods were tested, including random forests, to identify predictive features for the algorithm. We reported the results of the regression approach as well as the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for predictive models. SETTING: Hospitalised inpatients. PARTICIPANTS: EHRs of 35 001 hospitalisations over 5 years across 2 academic hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Longitudinal shifts in pressure injury risk. RESULTS: The predictive algorithm with features generated by machine learning achieved significantly improved prediction of pressure injury risk (p<0.001) with an area under the ROC curve of 0.72; whereas standard care only achieved an area under the ROC curve of 0.52. At a specificity of 0.50, the predictive algorithm achieved a sensitivity of 0.75. CONCLUSIONS: These data could help hospitals conserve resources within a critical period of patient vulnerability of hospital-acquired pressure injury which is not reimbursed by US Medicare; thus, conserving between 30 000 and 90 000 labour-hours per year in an average 500-bed hospital. Hospitals can use this predictive algorithm to initiate a quality improvement programme for pressure injury prevention and further customise the algorithm to patient-specific variation by facility.

Evaluating Algorithmic Bias in 30-Day Hospital Readmission Models: Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of predictive algorithms in health care comes with the potential for algorithmic bias, which could exacerbate existing disparities. Fairness metrics have been proposed to measure algorithmic bias, but their application to real-world tasks is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the algorithmic bias associated with the application of common 30-day hospital readmission models and assess the usefulness and interpretability of selected fairness metrics. METHODS: We used 10.6 million adult inpatient discharges from Maryland and Florida from 2016 to 2019 in this retrospective study. Models predicting 30-day hospital readmissions were evaluated: LACE Index, modified HOSPITAL score, and modified Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) readmission measure, which were applied as-is (using existing coefficients) and retrained (recalibrated with 50% of the data). Predictive performances and bias measures were evaluated for all, between Black and White populations, and between low- and other-income groups. Bias measures included the parity of false negative rate (FNR), false positive rate (FPR), 0-1 loss, and generalized entropy index. Racial bias represented by FNR and FPR differences was stratified to explore shifts in algorithmic bias in different populations. RESULTS: The retrained CMS model demonstrated the best predictive performance (area under the curve: 0.74 in Maryland and 0.68-0.70 in Florida), and the modified HOSPITAL score demonstrated the best calibration (Brier score: 0.16-0.19 in Maryland and 0.19-0.21 in Florida). Calibration was better in White (compared to Black) populations and other-income (compared to low-income) groups, and the area under the curve was higher or similar in the Black (compared to White) populations. The retrained CMS and modified HOSPITAL score had the lowest racial and income bias in Maryland. In Florida, both of these models overall had the lowest income bias and the modified HOSPITAL score showed the lowest racial bias. In both states, the White and higher-income populations showed a higher FNR, while the Black and low-income populations resulted in a higher FPR and a higher 0-1 loss. When stratified by hospital and population composition, these models demonstrated heterogeneous algorithmic bias in different contexts and populations. CONCLUSIONS: Caution must be taken when interpreting fairness measures' face value. A higher FNR or FPR could potentially reflect missed opportunities or wasted resources, but these measures could also reflect health care use patterns and gaps in care. Simply relying on the statistical notions of bias could obscure or underplay the causes of health disparity. The imperfect health data, analytic frameworks, and the underlying health systems must be carefully considered. Fairness measures can serve as a useful routine assessment to detect disparate model performances but are insufficient to inform mechanisms or policy changes. However, such an assessment is an important first step toward data-driven improvement to address existing health disparities.

Research gaps and opportunities in precision nutrition: an NIH workshop report.

Precision nutrition is an emerging concept that aims to develop nutrition recommendations tailored to different people's circumstances and biological characteristics. Responses to dietary change and the resulting health outcomes from consuming different diets may vary significantly between people based on interactions between their genetic backgrounds, physiology, microbiome, underlying health status, behaviors, social influences, and environmental exposures. On 11-12 January 2021, the National Institutes of Health convened a workshop entitled "Precision Nutrition: Research Gaps and Opportunities" to bring together experts to discuss the issues involved in better understanding and addressing precision nutrition. The workshop proceeded in 3 parts: part I covered many aspects of genetics and physiology that mediate the links between nutrient intake and health conditions such as cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer disease, and cancer; part II reviewed potential contributors to interindividual variability in dietary exposures and responses such as baseline nutritional status, circadian rhythm/sleep, environmental exposures, sensory properties of food, stress, inflammation, and the social determinants of health; part III presented the need for systems approaches, with new methods and technologies that can facilitate the study and implementation of precision nutrition, and workforce development needed to create a new generation of researchers. The workshop concluded that much research will be needed before more precise nutrition recommendations can be achieved. This includes better understanding and accounting for variables such as age, sex, ethnicity, medical history, genetics, and social and environmental factors. The advent of new methods and technologies and the availability of considerably more data bring tremendous opportunity. However, the field must proceed with appropriate levels of caution and make sure the factors listed above are all considered, and systems approaches and methods are incorporated. It will be important to develop and train an expanded workforce with the goal of reducing health disparities and improving precision nutritional advice for all Americans.

A bias evaluation checklist for predictive models and its pilot application for 30-day hospital readmission models.

OBJECTIVE: Health care providers increasingly rely upon predictive algorithms when making important treatment decisions, however, evidence indicates that these tools can lead to inequitable outcomes across racial and socio-economic groups. In this study, we introduce a bias evaluation checklist that allows model developers and health care providers a means to systematically appraise a model's potential to introduce bias. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our methods include developing a bias evaluation checklist, a scoping literature review to identify 30-day hospital readmission prediction models, and assessing the selected models using the checklist. RESULTS: We selected 4 models for evaluation: LACE, HOSPITAL, Johns Hopkins ACG, and HATRIX. Our assessment identified critical ways in which these algorithms can perpetuate health care inequalities. We found that LACE and HOSPITAL have the greatest potential for introducing bias, Johns Hopkins ACG has the most areas of uncertainty, and HATRIX has the fewest causes for concern. DISCUSSION: Our approach gives model developers and health care providers a practical and systematic method for evaluating bias in predictive models. Traditional bias identification methods do not elucidate sources of bias and are thus insufficient for mitigation efforts. With our checklist, bias can be addressed and eliminated before a model is fully developed or deployed. CONCLUSION: The potential for algorithms to perpetuate biased outcomes is not isolated to readmission prediction models; rather, we believe our results have implications for predictive models across health care. We offer a systematic method for evaluating potential bias with sufficient flexibility to be utilized across models and applications.

Big data in health care: using analytics to identify and manage high-risk and high-cost patients.

The US health care system is rapidly adopting electronic health records, which will dramatically increase the quantity of clinical data that are available electronically. Simultaneously, rapid progress has been made in clinical analytics--techniques for analyzing large quantities of data and gleaning new insights from that analysis--which is part of what is known as big data. As a result, there are unprecedented opportunities to use big data to reduce the costs of health care in the United States. We present six use cases--that is, key examples--where some of the clearest opportunities exist to reduce costs through the use of big data: high-cost patients, readmissions, triage, decompensation (when a patient's condition worsens), adverse events, and treatment optimization for diseases affecting multiple organ systems. We discuss the types of insights that are likely to emerge from clinical analytics, the types of data needed to obtain such insights, and the infrastructure--analytics, algorithms, registries, assessment scores, monitoring devices, and so forth--that organizations will need to perform the necessary analyses and to implement changes that will improve care while reducing costs. Our findings have policy implications for regulatory oversight, ways to address privacy concerns, and the support of research on analytics.

Early detection of poor adherers to statins: applying individualized surveillance to pay for performance.

BACKGROUND: Medication nonadherence costs $300 billion annually in the US. Medicare Advantage plans have a financial incentive to increase medication adherence among members because the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) now awards substantive bonus payments to such plans, based in part on population adherence to chronic medications. We sought to build an individualized surveillance model that detects early which beneficiaries will fall below the CMS adherence threshold. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of over 210,000 beneficiaries initiating statins, in a database of private insurance claims, from 2008-2011. A logistic regression model was constructed to use statin adherence from initiation to day 90 to predict beneficiaries who would not meet the CMS measure of proportion of days covered 0.8 or above, from day 91 to 365. The model controlled for 15 additional characteristics. In a sensitivity analysis, we varied the number of days of adherence data used for prediction. RESULTS: Lower adherence in the first 90 days was the strongest predictor of one-year nonadherence, with an odds ratio of 25.0 (95% confidence interval 23.7-26.5) for poor adherence at one year. The model had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80. Sensitivity analysis revealed that predictions of comparable accuracy could be made only 40 days after statin initiation. When members with 30-day supplies for their first statin fill had predictions made at 40 days, and members with 90-day supplies for their first fill had predictions made at 100 days, poor adherence could be predicted with 86% positive predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: To preserve their Medicare Star ratings, plan managers should identify or develop effective programs to improve adherence. An individualized surveillance approach can be used to target members who would most benefit, recognizing the tradeoff between improved model performance over time and the advantage of earlier detection.