Predicting Emergency Department Visits for Patients with Type II Diabetes
Open accessAbstract
Over 30 million Americans are affected by Type II diabetes (T2D), a treatable condition with significant health risks. This study aims to develop and validate predictive models using machine learning (ML) techniques to estimate emergency department (ED) visits among patients with T2D. Data for these patients was obtained from the HealthShare Exchange (HSX), focusing on demographic details, diagnoses, and vital signs. Our sample contained 34,151 patients diagnosed with T2D which resulted in 703,065 visits overall between 2017 and 2021. A workflow integrated EMR data with SDoH for ML predictions. A total of 87 out of 2,555 features were selected for model construction. Various machine learning algorithms, including CatBoost, Ensemble Learning, K-nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Classification (SVC), Random Forest, and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), were employed with tenfold cross-validation to predict whether a patient is at risk of an ED visit. The ROC curves for Random Forest, XGBoost, Ensemble Learning, CatBoost, KNN, and SVC, were 0.82, 0.82, 0.82, 0.81, 0.72, 0.68, respectively. Ensemble Learning and Random Forest models demonstrated superior predictive performance in terms of discrimination, calibration, and clinical applicability. These models are reliable tools for predicting risk of ED visits among patients with T2D. They can estimate future ED demand and assist clinicians in identifying critical factors associated with ED utilization, enabling early interventions to reduce such visits. The top five important features were age, the difference between visitation gaps, visitation gaps, R10 or abdominal and pelvic pain, and the Index of Concentration at the Extremes (ICE) for income.
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?
Machine learning and artificial intelligence approaches have demonstrated growing promise in diabetes risk prediction, complication detection and healthcare utilization forecasting.
“More recently, machine learning and artificial intelligence approaches have demonstrated growing promise in diabetes risk prediction, complication detection and healthcare utilization forecasting [21–28].”
From Machine learning-driven risk prediction for post-hospitalization diabetes case management: Integrating clinical and social determinants of health (2026) · cites this paper as [26]
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
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Joseph L. Dieleman, Jackie Cao, Abby Chapin, et al. US Health Care Spending by Payer and Health Condition, 1996-2016. JAMA. 2020;323(9):863-884. doi:10.1001/JAMA.2020.0734. · DOI · Paper page
- Ruirui Sun, Zeynal Karaca, Herbert S. Wong. Trends in Hospital Emergency Department Visits by Age and Payer, 2006-2015. HCUP Statistical Briefs. 2018. PMID: 30063311.
- Justin W. Yan, Katherine M. Gushulak, Melanie P. Columbus, et al. Risk factors for recurrent emergency department visits for hyperglycemia in patients with diabetes mellitus. Int J Emerg Med. 2017;10(1):12. doi:10.1186/S12245-017-0150-Y. · DOI
- Ayae Yamamoto, Jack Needleman, Lillian Gelberg, et al. Association between Homelessness and Opioid Over- dose and Opioid-related Hospital Admissions/Emergency Department Visits. Soc Sci Med. 2019;242:112585. doi:10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2019.112585. · DOI
- Tegveer S. Uppal, Puneet Kaur Chehal, Gail Fernandes, et al. Trends and Variations in Emergency Depart- ment Use Associated With Diabetes in the US by Sociodemographic Factors, 2008-2017. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(5):E2213867. doi:10.1001/JAMANETWORKOPEN.2022.13867. · DOI
- Gareth H. Williams. The determinants of health: structure, context, and agency. Sociology of Health and Illness. 2003;25(3):131-154. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.00344. · DOI
- Di Q, Wei Y, Shtein A, et al. Daily and Annual PM2.5 Concentrations for the Contiguous United States, 1-km Grids, v1 (2000 -2016). NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). 2021. doi:10.7927/0rvr-4538. · DOI
- Liudmila Prokhorenkova, Gleb Gusev, Aleksandr Vorobev, Anna Veronika Dorogush, Andrey Gulin. CatBoost: unbiased boosting with categorical features. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2018;6638-6648. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09516v5. · arXiv
- David Opitz, Richard Maclin. Popular ensemble methods: an empirical study. J Artif Intell Res. 1999. doi:10.5555/3013545.3013549. · DOI
- N. S. Altman. An Introduction to Kernel and Nearest-Neighbor Nonparametric Regression. Am Stat. 1992;46(3):175-185. doi:10.1080/00031305.1992.10475879. · DOI
- Corinna Cortes, Vladimir Vapnik. Support-vector networks. Mach Learn. 1995;20(3):273-297. doi:10.1007/BF00994018. · DOI · Paper page
- Leo Breiman. Random forests. Mach Learn. 2001;45(1):5-32. doi:10.1023/A:1010933404324. · DOI · Paper page
- Tianqi Chen, Carlos Guestrin. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. Proc ACM SIGKDD Int Conf Knowl Discov Data Min. 2016;13-17. doi:10.1145/2939672.2939785. · DOI · Paper page
- Zhongheng Zhang. Too much covariates in a multivariable model may cause the problem of overfitting. J Thorac Dis. 2014;6(9):E196. doi:10.3978/J.ISSN.2072-1439.2014.08.33. · DOI
- Edmond A. Hooker, Peter J. Mallow, Michelle M. Oglesby. Characteristics and Trends of Emer- gency Department Visits in the United States (2010-2014). J Emerg Med. 2019;56(3):344-351. doi:10.1016/J.JEMERMED.2018.12.025. · DOI
- John R. Petrie, Tomasz J. Guzik, Rhian M. Touyz. Diabetes, Hypertension, and Cardiovascular Disease: Clinical Insights and Vascular Mechanisms. Can J Cardiol. 2018;34(5):575-584. doi:10.1016/J.CJCA.2017.12.005. · DOI · Paper page
- Anthony D. Harries, Rony Zachariah, Anil Kapur, et al. The vital signs of chronic disease management. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2009;103(6):537-540. doi:10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.12.008. · DOI
- Gelareh Z. Gabayan, Michael K. Gould, Robert E. Weiss, et al. Emergency Department Vital Signs and Outcomes After Discharge. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24(7):846-854. doi:10.1111/ACEM.13194. · DOI
- Authors
- Alizadeh, J. M., Patel, J. S., Tajeu, G., Chen, Y., Hollin, I. L., Patel, M. K., Fei, J., & Wu, H.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2412.08984
- OpenAlex
- W4405354831
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- AcademyHealth
- 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 › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
- Keywords
- type 2 diabetes, emergency department visits, social determinants of health, electronic health records, random forest, XGBoost, CatBoost, ensemble learning, income inequality
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