IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i4p3760-d1074858.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Medication Regimen Complexity Index Score at Admission as a Predictor of Inpatient Outcomes: A Machine Learning Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Yves Paul Vincent Mbous

    (Department of Pharmaceutical Systems and Policy, School of Pharmacy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA)

  • Todd Brothers

    (Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, USA
    Roger Williams Medical Center, Providence, RI 02908, USA)

  • Mohammad A. Al-Mamun

    (Department of Pharmaceutical Systems and Policy, School of Pharmacy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA)

Abstract

Background: In the intensive care unit, traditional scoring systems use illness severity and/or organ failure to determine prognosis, and this usually rests on the patient’s condition at admission. In spite of the importance of medication reconciliation, the usefulness of home medication histories as predictors of clinical outcomes remains unexplored. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the medical records of 322 intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The predictors of interest included the medication regimen complexity index (MRCI) at admission, the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, or a combination thereof. Outcomes included mortality, length of stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. Machine learning algorithms were used for outcome classification after correcting for class imbalances in the general population and across the racial continuum. Results: The home medication model could predict all clinical outcomes accurately 70% of the time. Among Whites, it improved to 80%, whereas among non-Whites it remained at 70%. The addition of SOFA and APACHE II yielded the best models among non-Whites and Whites, respectively. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values showed that low MRCI scores were associated with reduced mortality and LOS, yet an increased need for mechanical ventilation. Conclusion: Home medication histories represent a viable addition to traditional predictors of health outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Yves Paul Vincent Mbous & Todd Brothers & Mohammad A. Al-Mamun, 2023. "Medication Regimen Complexity Index Score at Admission as a Predictor of Inpatient Outcomes: A Machine Learning Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3760-:d:1074858
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3760/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3760/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sendhil Mullainathan & Ziad Obermeyer, 2017. "Does Machine Learning Automate Moral Hazard and Error?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 476-480, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Persson, Petra & Qiu, Xinyao & Rossin-Slater, Maya, 2021. "Family Spillover Effects of Marginal Diagnoses: The Case of ADHD," IZA Discussion Papers 14020, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    3. Daníelsson, Jón & Macrae, Robert & Uthemann, Andreas, 2022. "Artificial intelligence and systemic risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    4. Hamsa Bastani, 2021. "Predicting with Proxies: Transfer Learning in High Dimension," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2964-2984, May.
    5. Ziyuan Wang, 2023. "Spatial Differentiation Characteristics of Rural Areas Based on Machine Learning and GIS Statistical Analysis—A Case Study of Yongtai County, Fuzhou City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Persson, Petra & Qiu, Xinyao & Rossin-Slater, Maya, 2021. "Family Spillover Effects of Marginal Diagnoses: The Case of ADHD," CEPR Discussion Papers 15660, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Bo Cowgill, 2019. "Bias and Productivity in Humans and Machines," Upjohn Working Papers 19-309, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    8. Wan, Wayne Xinwei & Lindenthal, Thies, 2022. "Towards accountability in machine learning applications: A system-testing approach," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-001, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. Sendhil Mullainathan & Ziad Obermeyer, 2019. "Diagnosing Physician Error: A Machine Learning Approach to Low-Value Health Care," NBER Working Papers 26168, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Navitha Singh Sewpersadh, 2023. "Disruptive business value models in the digital era," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    11. Jill Walker Rettberg, 2020. "Situated data analysis: a new method for analysing encoded power relationships in social media platforms and apps," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, December.
    12. Wayne Xinwei Wan & Thies Lindenthal, 2023. "Testing machine learning systems in real estate," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 51(3), pages 754-778, May.
    13. Songul Tolan, 2018. "Fair and Unbiased Algorithmic Decision Making: Current State and Future Challenges," JRC Working Papers on Digital Economy 2018-10, Joint Research Centre.
    14. Markus Eyting, 2020. "A Random Forest a Day Keeps the Doctor Away," Working Papers 2026, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    15. Bauer, Kevin & Pfeuffer, Nicolas & Abdel-Karim, Benjamin M. & Hinz, Oliver & Kosfeld, Michael, 2020. "The terminator of social welfare? The economic consequences of algorithmic discrimination," SAFE Working Paper Series 287, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    16. Laura Blattner & Scott Nelson & Jann Spiess, 2021. "Unpacking the Black Box: Regulating Algorithmic Decisions," Papers 2110.03443, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    17. van Giffen, Benjamin & Herhausen, Dennis & Fahse, Tobias, 2022. "Overcoming the pitfalls and perils of algorithms: A classification of machine learning biases and mitigation methods," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 93-106.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3760-:d:1074858. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.