Cited by 25Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareHospital Admissions and Outcomes

Toward Predicting 30-Day Readmission Among Oncology Patients: Identifying Timely and Actionable Risk Factors

Open access
Hwang, Sy, Urbanowicz, Ryan, Lynch, Selah, Vernon, Tawnya, Bresz, Kellie, Giraldo, Carolina, Kennedy, Erin, Leabhart, Max +4 more·2023·JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

PURPOSE: Predicting 30-day readmission risk is paramount to improving the quality of patient care. In this study, we compare sets of patient-, provider-, and community-level variables that are available at two different points of a patient's inpatient encounter (first 48 hours and the full encounter) to train readmission prediction models and identify possible targets for appropriate interventions that can potentially reduce avoidable readmissions. METHODS: Using electronic health record data from a retrospective cohort of 2,460 oncology patients and a comprehensive machine learning analysis pipeline, we trained and tested models predicting 30-day readmission on the basis of data available within the first 48 hours of admission and from the entire hospital encounter. RESULTS: Leveraging all features, the light gradient boosting model produced higher, but comparable performance (area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]: 0.711) with the Epic model (AUROC: 0.697). Given features in the first 48 hours, the random forest model produces higher AUROC (0.684) than the Epic model (AUROC: 0.676). Both models flagged patients with a similar distribution of race and sex; however, our light gradient boosting and random forest models were more inclusive, flagging more patients among younger age groups. The Epic models were more sensitive to identifying patients with an average lower zip income. Our 48-hour models were powered by novel features at various levels: patient (weight change over 365 days, depression symptoms, laboratory values, and cancer type), hospital (winter discharge and hospital admission type), and community (zip income and marital status of partner). CONCLUSION: We developed and validated models comparable with the existing Epic 30-day readmission models with several novel actionable insights that could create service interventions deployed by the case management or discharge planning teams that may decrease readmission rates over time.

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 · 10.1200/cci.22.00097

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • Hwang 2023 is a validation study only including oncology patients, introducing significant bias with regard to patient selection.

    “Hwang 2023 28 is a validation study only including oncology patients, introducing significant bias with regard to patient selection.”

    From A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Externally Validated Epic Clinical Decision Support Tools (2026) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Cohort and Dataset section describes a cohort restricted to oncology patients, supporting that part of the claim. But the Conclusions say the authors developed and validated models, so this was not a validation-only study. The Limitations section notes that the models were not evaluated at another hospital; it does not establish significant patient-selection bias. Our copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Drew 2023 had significant concerns with regard to patient selection because only patients receiving outpatient parenteral antibiotics were included.

    “Similar to Hwang 2023, 28 Drew 2023 26 also had significant concerns with regard to patient selection; only patients receiving outpatient parenteral antibiotics were included.”

    From A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Externally Validated Epic Clinical Decision Support Tools (2026) · cites this paper as [28]

    Section 3.1 (page unavailable) describes a selected oncology cohort at one institute and excludes patients who moved away, died within 30 days, or were readmitted elsewhere. This supports the existence of patient-selection restrictions, but Hwang does not characterize them as significant concerns. The outpatient parenteral antibiotic restriction is attributed to Drew, not Hwang. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2011;12:2825-2830.
  2. Urbanowicz RJ, Suri P, Lu Y, Moore JH, Ruth K, Stolzenberg-Solomon R, et al. A Rigorous Machine Learning Analysis Pipeline for Biomedical Binary Clas- sification: Application in Pancreatic Cancer Nested Case-control Studies with Implications for Bias Assessments. arXiv preprint arXiv:200812829. 2020;.
  3. Khorshid SF, Abdulazeez AM. breast cancer diagnosis based on k-nearest neighbors: A review. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology. 2021;18(4):1927-1951.
  4. Akiba T, Sano S, Yanase T, Ohta T, Koyama M. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining; 2019. p. 2623-2631.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hwang, S., Urbanowicz, R., Lynch, S., Vernon, T., Bresz, K., Giraldo, C., Kennedy, E., Leabhart, M., Bleacher, T., Ripchinski, M. R., Mowery, D. L., & Oyer, R. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine (US)
  • Abramson Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Mowery, Danielle L.
Venue
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
Published
2023-02
Volume
7
Issue
7
Pages
e2200097-e2200097
ISSN
2473-4276 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4321438200
Cited by
25
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001878)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (F31NR019919)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
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
30-day readmission, readmission prediction, cancer patients, avoidable readmissions, LightGBM, random forest, depressive symptoms, weight change, discharge planning, case management
MeSH terms
Hospitalization, Humans, Neoplasms, Patient Readmission, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors

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