4.6 Article

Developing a stroke severity index based on administrative data was feasible using data mining techniques

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 68, 期 11, 页码 1292-1300

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.009

关键词

Acute ischemic stroke; Disease severity; Administrative data; Data mining; Prediction model; Outcomes research

资金

  1. National Cheng Kung University [NCKUH-10206008]
  2. National Science Council of the Republic of China [NSC 102-2410-H-194-104-MY2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Case-mix adjustment is difficult for stroke outcome studies using administrative data. However, relevant prescription, laboratory, procedure, and service claims might be surrogates for stroke severity. This study proposes a method for developing a stroke severity index (SSI) by using administrative data. Study Design and Setting: We identified 3,577 patients with acute ischemic stroke from a hospital-based registry and analyzed claims data with plenty of features. Stroke severity was measured using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). We used two data mining methods and conventional multiple linear regression (MLR) to develop prediction models, comparing the model performance according to the Pearson correlation coefficient between the SSI and the NIHSS. We validated these models in four independent cohorts by using hospital-based registry data linked to a nationwide administrative database. Results: We identified seven predictive features and developed three models. The k-nearest neighbor model (correlation coefficient, 0.743; 95% confidence interval: 0.737, 0.749) performed slightly better than the MLR model (0.742; 0.736, 0.747), followed by the regression tree model (0.737; 0.731, 0.742). In the validation cohorts, the correlation coefficients were between 0.677 and 0.725 for all three models. Conclusion: The claims-based SSI enables adjusting for disease severity in stroke studies using administrative data. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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