Readmission prediction using deep learning on electronic health records
Open accessAbstract
Unscheduled 30-day readmissions are a hallmark of Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) patients that pose significant health risks and escalate care cost. In order to reduce readmissions and curb the cost of care, it is important to initiate targeted intervention programs for patients at risk of readmission. This requires identifying high-risk patients at the time of discharge from hospital. Here, using real data from over 7500 CHF patients hospitalized between 2012 and 2016 in Sweden, we built and tested a deep learning framework to predict 30-day unscheduled readmission. We present a cost-sensitive formulation of Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural network using expert features and contextual embedding of clinical concepts. This study targets key elements of an Electronic Health Record (EHR) driven prediction model in a single framework: using both expert and machine derived features, incorporating sequential patterns and addressing the class imbalance problem. We evaluate the contribution of each element towards prediction performance (ROC-AUC, F1-measure) and cost-savings. We show that the model with all key elements achieves higher discrimination ability (AUC: 0.77; F1: 0.51; Cost: 22% of maximum possible savings) outperforming the reduced models in at least two evaluation metrics. Additionally, we present a simple financial analysis to estimate annual savings if targeted interventions are offered to high risk patients.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Machine learning and deep learning techniques hold great promise in deriving meaningful insights from EHR, which can aid in accurately predicting clinical outcomes, such as mortality and readmission.
“They hold great promise in deriving meaningful insights from EHR, which can aid in accurately predicting clinical outcomes, such as mortality [13] and readmission [13], [14].”
From Multimodal risk prediction with physiological signals, medical images and clinical notes (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 48 · Cited by 194
- Authors
- Ashfaq, A., Sant’Anna, A., Lingman, M., & Nowaczyk, S.
- Affiliations
- Hallands sjukhus Halmstad (SE)
- Halmstad University (SE)
- Region Halland (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Ashfaq, Awais
- Venue
- Journal of Biomedical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-09
- Volume
- 97
- Pages
- 103256
- ISSN
- 1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2963650911
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 8.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- European Regional Development Fund
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
- Keywords
- congestive heart failure, hospital readmission prediction, 30-day readmission, electronic health records, LSTM neural network, cost-sensitive learning, class imbalance, targeted interventions, healthcare cost reduction
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Expert Systems, Female, Heart Failure, Humans, Male, Patient Discharge, Patient Readmission, Risk Factors, Sweden, Time Factors, Models, Statistical, Neural Networks, Computer, Cost Savings, Computational Biology, Electronic Health Records
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review