Benchmarking Deep Learning Architectures for Predicting Readmission to the ICU and Describing Patients-at-Risk
Open accessAbstract
To compare different deep learning architectures for predicting the risk of readmission within 30 days of discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU). The interpretability of attention-based models is leveraged to describe patients-at-risk. Several deep learning architectures making use of attention mechanisms, recurrent layers, neural ordinary differential equations (ODEs), and medical concept embeddings with time-aware attention were trained using publicly available electronic medical record data (MIMIC-III) associated with 45,298 ICU stays for 33,150 patients. Bayesian inference was used to compute the posterior over weights of an attention-based model. Odds ratios associated with an increased risk of readmission were computed for static variables. Diagnoses, procedures, medications, and vital signs were ranked according to the associated risk of readmission. A recurrent neural network, with time dynamics of code embeddings computed by neural ODEs, achieved the highest average precision of 0.331 (AUROC: 0.739, F 1-Score: 0.372). Predictive accuracy was comparable across neural network architectures. Groups of patients at risk included those suffering from infectious complications, with chronic or progressive conditions, and for whom standard medical care was not suitable. Attention-based networks may be preferable to recurrent networks if an interpretable model is required, at only marginal cost in predictive accuracy.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Month-level, year-level, and visit-level predictions are prevalent for long-term prediction tasks.
“Month-level [69,88], year-level [11,48,66,78,80], and visit-level predictions [31,38,56,59,64,70,71,76] are prevalent for those tasks.”
From Deep representation learning of patient data from Electronic Health Records (EHR): A systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [88]
Apart from projecting representations, interpretability can be provided by visualization methods including a heatmap of features, visualizing attention weights, and case study.
“Apart from projecting representations, interpretability can be provided by visualization methods including a heatmap of features [33,67,78], visualizing attention weights [57,72,76,80,88], and case study (explanation by examples) [32].”
From Deep representation learning of patient data from Electronic Health Records (EHR): A systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [88]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 70 · Cited by 86
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- [5]Choi, E. et al. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 3504–3512 (2016).
- [11]Vaswani, A. et al. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 5998–6008 (2017).
- [14]Cao, W. et al. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 6775–6785 (2018).
- [16]Chen, T. Q., Rubanova, Y., Bettencourt, J. & Duvenaud, D. K. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 6571–6583 (2018).
- [35]Hinton, G. & Van Camp, D. In Proc. of the 6th Ann. ACM Conf. on Computational Learning Theory. (1993).
- [41]Davis, J. & Goadrich, M. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning. 233–240 (2006).
- [46]Paszke, A. et al. In NIPS 2017 Workshop. (2017).
- [47]Cheung, B. L. P. & Dahl, D. In Biomedical & Health Informatics (BHI), 2018 IEEE EMBS International Conference on. 222–225 (IEEE, 2018).
- Authors
- Barbieri, S., Kemp, J., Perez-Concha, O., Kotwal, S., Gallagher, M., Ritchie, A., & Jorm, L.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Barbieri, Sebastiano
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2020-01-24
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1111-1111
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6981230
- OpenAlex
- W2985981364
- Cited by
- 86
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 7
- FWCI
- 5.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- 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 › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
- Keywords
- ICU readmission prediction, intensive care unit discharge, attention-based models, interpretability, neural ordinary differential equations, recurrent neural networks, Bayesian inference, MIMIC-III, electronic health records, infectious complications, chronic disease
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Algorithms, Bayes Theorem, Chronic Disease, Communicable Diseases, Forecasting, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Patient Readmission, Risk, Sensitivity and Specificity, Odds Ratio, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Neural Networks, Computer, Disease Progression
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