Dataset Information

Using machine learning to examine medication adherence thresholds and risk of hospitalization.

ABSTRACT: Quality improvement efforts are frequently tied to patients achieving ?80% medication adherence. However, there is little empirical evidence that this threshold optimally predicts important health outcomes.To apply machine learning to examine how adherence to oral hypoglycemic medications is associated with avoidance of hospitalizations, and to identify adherence thresholds for optimal discrimination of hospitalization risk.A retrospective cohort study of 33,130 non-dual-eligible Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes. We randomly selected 90% of the cohort (training sample) to develop the prediction algorithm and used the remaining (testing sample) for validation. We applied random survival forests to identify predictors for hospitalization and fit survival trees to empirically derive adherence thresholds that best discriminate hospitalization risk, using the proportion of days covered (PDC).Time to first all-cause and diabetes-related hospitalization.The training and testing samples had similar characteristics (mean age, 48 y; 67% female; mean PDC=0.65). We identified 8 important predictors of all-cause hospitalizations (rank in order): prior hospitalizations/emergency department visit, number of prescriptions, diabetes complications, insulin use, PDC, number of prescribers, Elixhauser index, and eligibility category. The adherence thresholds most discriminating for risk of all-cause hospitalization varied from 46% to 94% according to patient health and medication complexity. PDC was not predictive of hospitalizations in the healthiest or most complex patient subgroups.Adherence thresholds most discriminating of hospitalization risk were not uniformly 80%. Machine-learning approaches may be valuable to identify appropriate patient-specific adherence thresholds for measuring quality of care and targeting nonadherent patients for intervention.

SUBMITTER: Lo-Ciganic WH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4503478 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using machine learning to examine medication adherence thresholds and risk of hospitalization.

Lo-Ciganic Wei-Hsuan WH Donohue Julie M JM Thorpe Joshua M JM Perera Subashan S Thorpe Carolyn T CT Marcum Zachary A ZA Gellad Walid F WF

Medical care 20150801 8

<h4>Background</h4>Quality improvement efforts are frequently tied to patients achieving ≥80% medication adherence. However, there is little empirical evidence that this threshold optimally predicts important health outcomes.<h4>Objective</h4>To apply machine learning to examine how adherence to oral hypoglycemic medications is associated with avoidance of hospitalizations, and to identify adherence thresholds for optimal discrimination of hospitalization risk.<h4>Methods</h4>A retrospective coh ...[more]

PMID: 26147866

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study assesses the feasibility of using machine learning methods such as Random Forests (RF), Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), Support Vector Regression (SVR) and Self-Organizing Feature Maps (SOM) to identify and determine factors associated with hypertensive patients' adherence levels. Hypertension is the medical term for systolic and diastolic blood pressure higher than 140/90 mmHg. A conventional medication adherence scale was used to identify patients' adherence to their prescribed medication. Using machine learning applications to predict precise numeric adherence scores in hypertensive patients has not yet been reported in the literature.MethodsData from 160 hypertensive patients from a tertiary hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, were used in this study. Variables were ranked based on their significance to adherence levels using the RF variable importance method. The backward elimination method was then performed using RF to obtain the variables significantly associated with the patients' adherence levels. RF, SVR and ANN models were developed to predict adherence using the identified significant variables. Visualizations of the relationships between hypertensive patients' adherence levels and variables were generated using SOM.ResultMachine learning models constructed using the selected variables reported RMSE values of 1.42 for ANN, 1.53 for RF, and 1.55 for SVR. The accuracy of the dichotomised scores, calculated based on a percentage of correctly identified adherence values, was used as an additional model performance measure, resulting in accuracies of 65% (ANN), 78% (RF) and 79% (SVR), respectively. The Wilcoxon signed ranked test reported that there was no significant difference between the predictions of the machine learning models and the actual scores. The significant variables identified from the RF variable importance method were educational level, marital status, General Overuse, monthly income, and Specific Concern.ConclusionThis study suggests an effective alternative to conventional methods in identifying the key variables to understand hypertensive patients' adherence levels. This can be used as a tool to educate patients on the importance of medication in managing hypertension.

Project description:BackgroundOpioid Use Disorder (OUD) and opioid overdose (OD) impose huge social and economic burdens on society and health care systems. Research suggests that Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) is effective in the treatment of OUD. We use machine learning to investigate the association between patient's adherence to prescribed MOUD along with other risk factors in patients diagnosed with OUD and potential OD following the treatment.MethodsWe used longitudinal Medicaid claims for two selected US states to subset a total of 26,685 patients with OUD diagnosis and appropriate Medicaid coverage between 2015 and 2018. We considered patient age, sex, region level socio-economic data, past comorbidities, MOUD prescription type and other selected prescribed medications along with the Proportion of Days Covered (PDC) as a proxy for adherence to MOUD as predictive variables for our model, and overdose events as the dependent variable. We applied four different machine learning classifiers and compared their performance, focusing on the importance and effect of PDC as a variable. We also calculated results based on risk stratification, where our models separate high risk individuals from low risk, to assess usefulness in clinical decision-making.ResultsAmong the selected classifiers, the XGBoost classifier has the highest AUC (0.77) closely followed by the Logistic Regression (LR). The LR has the best stratification result: patients in the top 10% of risk scores account for 35.37% of overdose events over the next 12 month observation period. PDC score calculated over the treatment window is one of the most important features, with better PDC lowering risk of OD, as expected. In terms of risk stratification results, of the 35.37% of overdose events that the predictive model could detect within the top 10% of risk scores, 72.3% of these cases were non-adherent in terms of their medication (PDC <0.8). Targeting the top 10% outcome of the predictive model could decrease the total number of OD events by 10.4%.ConclusionsThe best performing models allow identification of, and focus on, those at high risk of opioid overdose. With MOUD being included for the first time as a factor of interest, and being identified as a significant factor, outreach activities related to MOUD can be targeted at those at highest risk.

Project description:BackgroundAccurate prediction models for whether patients on the verge of a psychiatric criseis need hospitalization are lacking and machine learning methods may help improve the accuracy of psychiatric hospitalization prediction models. In this paper we evaluate the accuracy of ten machine learning algorithms, including the generalized linear model (GLM/logistic regression) to predict psychiatric hospitalization in the first 12 months after a psychiatric crisis care contact. We also evaluate an ensemble model to optimize the accuracy and we explore individual predictors of hospitalization.MethodsData from 2084 patients included in the longitudinal Amsterdam Study of Acute Psychiatry with at least one reported psychiatric crisis care contact were included. Target variable for the prediction models was whether the patient was hospitalized in the 12 months following inclusion. The predictive power of 39 variables related to patients' socio-demographics, clinical characteristics and previous mental health care contacts was evaluated. The accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the machine learning algorithms were compared and we also estimated the relative importance of each predictor variable. The best and least performing algorithms were compared with GLM/logistic regression using net reclassification improvement analysis and the five best performing algorithms were combined in an ensemble model using stacking.ResultsAll models performed above chance level. We found Gradient Boosting to be the best performing algorithm (AUC = 0.774) and K-Nearest Neighbors to be the least performing (AUC = 0.702). The performance of GLM/logistic regression (AUC = 0.76) was slightly above average among the tested algorithms. In a Net Reclassification Improvement analysis Gradient Boosting outperformed GLM/logistic regression by 2.9% and K-Nearest Neighbors by 11.3%. GLM/logistic regression outperformed K-Nearest Neighbors by 8.7%. Nine of the top-10 most important predictor variables were related to previous mental health care use.ConclusionsGradient Boosting led to the highest predictive accuracy and AUC while GLM/logistic regression performed average among the tested algorithms. Although statistically significant, the magnitude of the differences between the machine learning algorithms was in most cases modest. The results show that a predictive accuracy similar to the best performing model can be achieved when combining multiple algorithms in an ensemble model.

Project description:Current approaches to understanding medication ordering errors rely on relatively small manually captured error samples. These approaches are resource-intensive, do not scale for computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems, and are likely to miss important risk factors associated with medication ordering errors. Previously, we described a dataset of CPOE-based medication voiding accompanied by univariable and multivariable regression analyses. However, these traditional techniques require expert guidance and may perform poorly compared to newer approaches. In this paper, we update that analysis using machine learning (ML) models to predict erroneous medication orders and identify its contributing factors. We retrieved patient demographics (race/ethnicity, sex, age), clinician characteristics, type of medication order (inpatient, prescription, home medication by history), and order content. We compared logistic regression, random forest, boosted decision trees, and artificial neural network models. Model performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). The dataset included 5,804,192 medication orders, of which 28,695 (0.5%) were voided. ML correctly classified voids at reasonable accuracy; with a positive predictive value of 10%, ~20% of errors were included. Gradient boosted decision trees achieved the highest AUROC (0.7968) and AUPRC (0.0647) among all models. Logistic regression had the poorest performance. Models identified predictive factors with high face validity (e.g., student orders), and a decision tree revealed interacting contexts with high rates of errors not identified by previous regression models. Prediction models using order-entry information offers promise for error surveillance, patient safety improvements, and targeted clinical review. The improved performance of models with complex interactions points to the importance of contextual medication ordering information for understanding contributors to medication errors.

Project description:Background: In pharmacotherapy, the achievement of a target clinical outcome requires a certain level of medication intake or adherence. Based on Haynes's early empirical definition of sufficient adherence to antihypertensive medications as taking ≥80% of medication, many researchers used this threshold to distinguish adherent from non-adherent patients. However, we propose that different diseases, medications and patient's characteristics influence the cut-off point of the adherence rate above which the clinical outcome is satisfactory (thereafter medication adherence threshold). Moreover, the assessment of adherence and clinical outcomes may differ greatly and should be taken into consideration. To our knowledge, very few studies have defined adherence rates linked to clinical outcomes. We aimed at investigating medication adherence thresholds in relation to clinical outcomes. Method: We searched for studies that determined the relationship between adherence rates and clinical outcomes in the databases PubMed, EmbaseⓇ and Web of Science™ until December 2017, limited to English-language. Our outcome measure was any threshold value of adherence. The inclusion criteria of the retrieved studies were (1) any measurement of medication adherence, (2) any assessment of clinical outcomes, and (3) any method to define medication adherence thresholds in relation to clinical outcomes. We excluded articles considered as a tutorial. Two authors (PB and IA) independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance, reviewed full-texts, and extracted items. The results of the included studies are presented qualitatively. Result: We analyzed 6 articles that assessed clinical outcomes linked to adherence rates in 7 chronic disease states. Medication adherence was measured with Medication Possession Ratio (MPR, n = 3), Proportion of Days Covered (PDC, n = 1), both (n = 1), or Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS). Clinical outcomes were event free episodes, hospitalization, cortisone use, reported symptoms and reduction of lipid levels. To find the relationship between the targeted clinical outcome and adherence rates, three studies applied logistic regression and three used survival analysis. Five studies defined adherence thresholds between 46 and 92%. One study confirmed the 80% threshold as valid to distinguish adherent from non-adherent patients. Conclusion: The analyzed studies were highly heterogeneous, predominantly concerning methods of calculating adherence. We could not compare studies quantitatively, mostly because adherence rates could not be standardized. Therefore, we cannot reject or confirm the validity of the historical 80% threshold. Nevertheless, the 80% threshold was clearly questioned as a general standard.

Dataset Information

Using machine learning to examine medication adherence thresholds and risk of hospitalization.

Publications

Using machine learning to examine medication adherence thresholds and risk of hospitalization.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets