4.5 Article

Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Timeliness of Care among Lung Cancer Patients

期刊

HEALTHCARE
卷 11, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11202756

关键词

machine learning; lung cancer; timeliness of care; socio-economic disadvantage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study is the first to use machine learning techniques to predict the quality and timeliness of care among lung cancer patients. Support vector machine and nearest neighbor methods performed well and can help healthcare workers identify patients who do not meet care indicators.
Delays in the assessment, management, and treatment of lung cancer patients may adversely impact prognosis and survival. This study is the first to use machine learning techniques to predict the quality and timeliness of care among lung cancer patients, utilising data from the Victorian Lung Cancer Registry (VLCR) between 2011 and 2022, in Victoria, Australia. Predictor variables included demographic, clinical, hospital, and geographical socio-economic indices. Machine learning methods such as random forests, k-nearest neighbour, neural networks, and support vector machines were implemented and evaluated using 20% out-of-sample cross validations via the area under the curve (AUC). Optimal model parameters were selected based on 10-fold cross validation. There were 11,602 patients included in the analysis. Evaluated quality indicators included, primarily, overall proportion achieving time from referral date to diagnosis date <= 28 days and proportion achieving time from diagnosis date to first treatment date (any intent) <= 14 days. Results showed that the support vector machine learning methods performed well, followed by nearest neighbour, based on out-of-sample AUCs of 0.89 (in-sample = 0.99) and 0.85 (in-sample = 0.99) for the first indicator, respectively. These models can be implemented in the registry databases to help healthcare workers identify patients who may not meet these indicators prospectively and enable timely interventions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据