Comparison of machine-learning and logistic regression models for prediction of 30-day unplanned readmission in electronic health records: A development and validation study

It is expected but unknown whether machine-learning models can outperform regression models, such as a logistic regression (LR) model, especially when the number and types of predictor variables increase in electronic health records (EHRs). We aimed to compare the predictive performance of gradient-boosted decision tree (GBDT), random forest (RF), deep neural network (DNN), and LR with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LR-LASSO) for unplanned readmission. We used EHRs of patients discharged alive from 38 hospitals in 2015-2017 for derivation and in 2018 for validation, including basic characteristics, diagnosis, surgery, procedure, and drug codes, and blood-test results. The outcome was 30-day unplanned readmission. We created six patterns of data tables having different numbers of binary variables (that ≥5% or ≥1% of patients or ≥10 patients had) with and without blood-test results. For each pattern of data tables, we used the derivation data to establish the machine-learning and LR models, and used the validation data to evaluate the performance of each model. The incidence of outcome was 6.8% (23,108/339,513 discharges) and 6.4% (7,507/118,074 discharges) in the derivation and validation datasets, respectively. For the first data table with the smallest number of variables (102 variables that ≥5% of patients had, without blood-test results), the c-statistic was highest for GBDT (0.740), followed by RF (0.734), LR-LASSO (0.720), and DNN (0.664). For the last data table with the largest number of variables (1543 variables that ≥10 patients had, including blood-test results), the c-statistic was highest for GBDT (0.764), followed by LR-LASSO (0.755), RF (0.751), and DNN (0.720), suggesting that the difference between GBDT and LR-LASSO was small and their 95% confidence intervals overlapped. In conclusion, GBDT generally outperformed LR-LASSO to predict unplanned readmission, but the difference of c-statistic became smaller as the number of variables was increased and blood-test results were used.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLOS Digital Health
Published
2024-08-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000578
Citations
13
Primary Topic
Machine Learning in Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.52

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of machine-learning and logistic regression models for prediction of 30-day unplanned readmission in electronic health records: A development and validation study

Nanako Tamiya, Toshikazu Abe, Tomohiro Shinozaki, Eiryo Kawakami et al.
13 citations
PLOS Digital Health
Machine Learning in Healthcare
4.52
article

Comparison of machine-learning and logistic regression models for prediction of 30-day unplanned readmission in electronic health records: A development and validation study

Nanako Tamiya, Toshikazu Abe, Tomohiro Shinozaki, Eiryo Kawakami, Yohei Hashimoto, Nobuaki Michihata, Jun Komiyama, Tomohide Yamada, Yuta Taniguchi, Ryota Inokuchi, Atsushi Goto, Toshiki Kuno, Tadahiro Goto, Kazuaki Uda, Masao Iwagami, Yu Sun
article en
13 citations

Abstract

It is expected but unknown whether machine-learning models can outperform regression models, such as a logistic regression (LR) model, especially when the number and types of predictor variables increase in electronic health records (EHRs). We aimed to compare the predictive performance of gradient-boosted decision tree (GBDT), random forest (RF), deep neural network (DNN), and LR with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LR-LASSO) for unplanned readmission. We used EHRs of patients discharged alive from 38 hospitals in 2015-2017 for derivation and in 2018 for validation, including basic characteristics, diagnosis, surgery, procedure, and drug codes, and blood-test results. The outcome was 30-day unplanned readmission. We created six patterns of data tables having different numbers of binary variables (that ≥5% or ≥1% of patients or ≥10 patients had) with and without blood-test results. For each pattern of data tables, we used the derivation data to establish the machine-learning and LR models, and used the validation data to evaluate the performance of each model. The incidence of outcome was 6.8% (23,108/339,513 discharges) and 6.4% (7,507/118,074 discharges) in the derivation and validation datasets, respectively. For the first data table with the smallest number of variables (102 variables that ≥5% of patients had, without blood-test results), the c-statistic was highest for GBDT (0.740), followed by RF (0.734), LR-LASSO (0.720), and DNN (0.664). For the last data table with the largest number of variables (1543 variables that ≥10 patients had, including blood-test results), the c-statistic was highest for GBDT (0.764), followed by LR-LASSO (0.755), RF (0.751), and DNN (0.720), suggesting that the difference between GBDT and LR-LASSO was small and their 95% confidence intervals overlapped. In conclusion, GBDT generally outperformed LR-LASSO to predict unplanned readmission, but the difference of c-statistic became smaller as the number of variables was increased and blood-test results were used.

PLOS Digital HealthVol. 3(8)
Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US), Montefiore Medical Center (US), Harvard University (US), University of Tsukuba (JP), Chiba University (JP), Tokyo University of Science (JP), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB), Tsukuba Memorial Hospital (JP), University of Tokyo Hospital (JP), Chiba Cancer Center (JP), University of Tokyo Health Sciences (JP), The University of Tokyo (JP), Yokohama City University (JP)
Foundation for Promotion of Material Science and Technology of Japan, University of Tsukuba, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Machine Learning in Healthcare
4.52
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.