SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2010.02742

Wound and episode level readmission risk or weeks to readmit: Why do patients get readmitted? How long does it take for a patient to get readmitted?

Abstract

The Affordable care Act of 2010 had introduced Readmission reduction program in 2012 to reduce avoidable re-admissions to control rising healthcare costs. Wound care impacts 15 of medicare beneficiaries making it one of the major contributors of medicare health care cost. Health plans have been exploring proactive health care services that can focus on preventing wound recurrences and re-admissions to control the wound care costs. With rising costs of Wound care industry, it has become of paramount importance to reduce wound recurrences & patient re-admissions. What factors are responsible for a Wound to recur which ultimately lead to hospitalization or re-admission? Is there a way to identify the patients at risk of re-admission before the occurrence using data driven analysis? Patient re-admission risk management has become critical for patients suffering from chronic wounds such as diabetic ulcers, pressure ulcers, and vascular ulcers. Understanding the risk & the factors that cause patient readmission can help care providers and patients avoid wound recurrences. Our work focuses on identifying patients who are at high risk of re-admission & determining the time period with in which a patient might get re-admitted. Frequent re-admissions add financial stress to the patient & Health plan and deteriorate the quality of life of the patient. Having this information can allow a provider to set up preventive measures that can delay, if not prevent, patients' re-admission. On a combined wound & episode-level data set of patient's wound care information, our extended autoprognosis achieves a recall of 92 and a precision of 92 for the predicting a patient's re-admission risk. For new patient class, precision and recall are as high as 91 and 98, respectively. We are also able to predict the patient's discharge event for a re-admission event to occur through our model with a MAE of 2.3 weeks.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Subba Reddy Oota, Nafisur Rahman, Shahid Saleem Mohammed, Jeffrey Galitz, Ming Liu. 2020-10-05. Wound and episode level readmission risk or weeks to readmit: Why do patients get readmitted? How long does it take for a patient to get readmitted?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02742

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG