PreprintCited by 31Machine Learning in HealthcareEmergency and Acute Care StudiesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Using explainable machine learning to identify patients at risk of reattendance at discharge from emergency departments

Open access
Chmiel, F. P., Burns, D. K., Azor, M., Borca, F., Boniface, M. J., Zlatev, Z. D., White, N. M., Daniels, T. W. V. +1 more·2020·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Short-term reattendances to emergency departments are a key quality of care indicator. Identifying patients at increased risk of early reattendance could help reduce the number of missed critical illnesses and could reduce avoidable utilization of emergency departments by enabling targeted post-discharge intervention. In this manuscript we present a retrospective, single-centre study where we created and evaluated an extreme gradient boosted decision tree model trained to identify patients at risk of reattendance within 72 hours of discharge from an emergency department (University Hospitals Southampton Foundation Trust, UK). Our model was trained using 35,447 attendances by 28,945 patients and evaluated on a hold-out test set featuring 8,847 attendances by 7,237 patients. The set of attendances from a given patient appeared exclusively in either the training or the test set. Our model was trained using both visit level variables (e.g., vital signs, arrival mode, and chief complaint) and a set of variables available in a patients electronic patient record, such as age and any recorded medical conditions. On the hold-out test set, our highest performing model obtained an AUROC of 0.747 (95% CI : 0.722-0.773) and an average precision of 0.233 (95% CI : 0.194-0.277). These results demonstrate that machine-learning models can be used to classify patients, with moderate performance, into low and high-risk groups for reattendance. We explained our models predictions using SHAP values, a concept developed from coalitional game theory, capable of explaining predictions at an attendance level. We demonstrated how clustering techniques can be used to investigate the different sub-groups of explanations present in our patient cohort.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2020.12.02.20239194

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chmiel, F. P., Burns, D. K., Azor, M., Borca, F., Boniface, M. J., Zlatev, Z. D., White, N. M., Daniels, T. W. V., & Kiuber, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Southampton General Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Chmiel, F. P.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2020-12-04
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
21513-21513
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3209507725
Cited by
30
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Alan Turing Institute (EP/N510129/1., N510129, EPSRC Grant EP/N510129/1)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (EP/N510129/1)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (N510129, EP/N510129/, EP/N510129/1, EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
explainable machine learning, SHAP values, extreme gradient boosting, UMAP clustering, risk stratification, emergency department utilization, electronic health records
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adolescent, Adult, Aftercare, Aged, Algorithms, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Discharge, Patient Readmission, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Triage, Critical Illness, Young Adult, 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