IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0235981.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using machine learning to predict risk of incident opioid use disorder among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries: A prognostic study

Author

Listed:
  • Wei-Hsuan Lo-Ciganic
  • James L Huang
  • Hao H Zhang
  • Jeremy C Weiss
  • C Kent Kwoh
  • Julie M Donohue
  • Adam J Gordon
  • Gerald Cochran
  • Daniel C Malone
  • Courtney C Kuza
  • Walid F Gellad

Abstract

Objective: To develop and validate a machine-learning algorithm to improve prediction of incident OUD diagnosis among Medicare beneficiaries with ≥1 opioid prescriptions. Methods: This prognostic study included 361,527 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, without cancer, filling ≥1 opioid prescriptions from 2011–2016. We randomly divided beneficiaries into training, testing, and validation samples. We measured 269 potential predictors including socio-demographics, health status, patterns of opioid use, and provider-level and regional-level factors in 3-month periods, starting from three months before initiating opioids until development of OUD, loss of follow-up or end of 2016. The primary outcome was a recorded OUD diagnosis or initiating methadone or buprenorphine for OUD as proxy of incident OUD. We applied elastic net, random forests, gradient boosting machine, and deep neural network to predict OUD in the subsequent three months. We assessed prediction performance using C-statistics and other metrics (e.g., number needed to evaluate to identify an individual with OUD [NNE]). Beneficiaries were stratified into subgroups by risk-score decile. Results: The training (n = 120,474), testing (n = 120,556), and validation (n = 120,497) samples had similar characteristics (age ≥65 years = 81.1%; female = 61.3%; white = 83.5%; with disability eligibility = 25.5%; 1.5% had incident OUD). In the validation sample, the four approaches had similar prediction performances (C-statistic ranged from 0.874 to 0.882); elastic net required the fewest predictors (n = 48). Using the elastic net algorithm, individuals in the top decile of risk (15.8% [n = 19,047] of validation cohort) had a positive predictive value of 0.96%, negative predictive value of 99.7%, and NNE of 104. Nearly 70% of individuals with incident OUD were in the top two deciles (n = 37,078), having highest incident OUD (36 to 301 per 10,000 beneficiaries). Individuals in the bottom eight deciles (n = 83,419) had minimal incident OUD (3 to 28 per 10,000). Conclusions: Machine-learning algorithms improve risk prediction and risk stratification of incident OUD in Medicare beneficiaries.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei-Hsuan Lo-Ciganic & James L Huang & Hao H Zhang & Jeremy C Weiss & C Kent Kwoh & Julie M Donohue & Adam J Gordon & Gerald Cochran & Daniel C Malone & Courtney C Kuza & Walid F Gellad, 2020. "Using machine learning to predict risk of incident opioid use disorder among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries: A prognostic study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-16, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235981
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235981
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235981
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235981&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0235981?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Justine S. Hastings & Mark Howison & Sarah E. Inman, 2020. "Predicting high-risk opioid prescriptions before they are given," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(4), pages 1917-1923, January.
    2. Takaya Saito & Marc Rehmsmeier, 2015. "The Precision-Recall Plot Is More Informative than the ROC Plot When Evaluating Binary Classifiers on Imbalanced Datasets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Paul Thottakkara & Tezcan Ozrazgat-Baslanti & Bradley B Hupf & Parisa Rashidi & Panos Pardalos & Petar Momcilovic & Azra Bihorac, 2016. "Application of Machine Learning Techniques to High-Dimensional Clinical Data to Forecast Postoperative Complications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, May.
    4. Paul T E Cusack, 2020. "On Pain," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 31(3), pages 24253-24254, October.
    5. Roberts, A.W. & Gellad, W.F. & Skinner, A.C., 2016. "Lock-in programs and the opioid epidemic: A call for evidence," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 106(11), pages 1918-1919.
    6. Hui Zou & Trevor Hastie, 2005. "Addendum: Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(5), pages 768-768, November.
    7. Hui Zou & Trevor Hastie, 2005. "Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(2), pages 301-320, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heba Edrees & Wenyu Song & Ania Syrowatka & Aurélien Simona & Mary G. Amato & David W. Bates, 2022. "Intelligent Telehealth in Pharmacovigilance: A Future Perspective," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 449-458, May.

    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. Christopher J Greenwood & George J Youssef & Primrose Letcher & Jacqui A Macdonald & Lauryn J Hagg & Ann Sanson & Jenn Mcintosh & Delyse M Hutchinson & John W Toumbourou & Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz &, 2020. "A comparison of penalised regression methods for informing the selection of predictive markers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Wei-Hsuan Lo-Ciganic & Julie M Donohue & Eric G Hulsey & Susan Barnes & Yuan Li & Courtney C Kuza & Qingnan Yang & Jeanine Buchanich & James L Huang & Christina Mair & Debbie L Wilson & Walid F Gellad, 2021. "Integrating human services and criminal justice data with claims data to predict risk of opioid overdose among Medicaid beneficiaries: A machine-learning approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Amanda Fitzgerald & Naoise Mac Giollabhui & Louise Dolphin & Robert Whelan & Barbara Dooley, 2018. "Dissociable psychosocial profiles of adolescent substance users," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, August.
    4. Merlijn Breugel & Cancan Qi & Zhongli Xu & Casper-Emil T. Pedersen & Ilya Petoukhov & Judith M. Vonk & Ulrike Gehring & Marijn Berg & Marnix Bügel & Orestes A. Carpaij & Erick Forno & Andréanne Morin , 2022. "Nasal DNA methylation at three CpG sites predicts childhood allergic disease," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Chen, Jian & Katchova, Ani L. & Zhou, Chenxi, 2021. "Agricultural loan delinquency prediction using machine learning methods," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(5), May.
    6. Rummens, Anneleen & Hardyns, Wim, 2021. "The effect of spatiotemporal resolution on predictive policing model performance," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 125-133.
    7. Tutz, Gerhard & Pößnecker, Wolfgang & Uhlmann, Lorenz, 2015. "Variable selection in general multinomial logit models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 207-222.
    8. Oxana Babecka Kucharcukova & Jan Bruha, 2016. "Nowcasting the Czech Trade Balance," Working Papers 2016/11, Czech National Bank.
    9. Carstensen, Kai & Heinrich, Markus & Reif, Magnus & Wolters, Maik H., 2020. "Predicting ordinary and severe recessions with a three-state Markov-switching dynamic factor model," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 829-850.
    10. Hou-Tai Chang & Ping-Huai Wang & Wei-Fang Chen & Chen-Ju Lin, 2022. "Risk Assessment of Early Lung Cancer with LDCT and Health Examinations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-12, April.
    11. Margherita Giuzio, 2017. "Genetic algorithm versus classical methods in sparse index tracking," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 40(1), pages 243-256, November.
    12. Nicolaj N. Mühlbach, 2020. "Tree-based Synthetic Control Methods: Consequences of moving the US Embassy," CREATES Research Papers 2020-04, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    13. Wang, Qiao & Zhou, Wei & Cheng, Yonggang & Ma, Gang & Chang, Xiaolin & Miao, Yu & Chen, E, 2018. "Regularized moving least-square method and regularized improved interpolating moving least-square method with nonsingular moment matrices," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 325(C), pages 120-145.
    14. Dmitriy Drusvyatskiy & Adrian S. Lewis, 2018. "Error Bounds, Quadratic Growth, and Linear Convergence of Proximal Methods," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 43(3), pages 919-948, August.
    15. Mkhadri, Abdallah & Ouhourane, Mohamed, 2013. "An extended variable inclusion and shrinkage algorithm for correlated variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 631-644.
    16. Lucian Belascu & Alexandra Horobet & Georgiana Vrinceanu & Consuela Popescu, 2021. "Performance Dissimilarities in European Union Manufacturing: The Effect of Ownership and Technological Intensity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-19, September.
    17. Candelon, B. & Hurlin, C. & Tokpavi, S., 2012. "Sampling error and double shrinkage estimation of minimum variance portfolios," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 511-527.
    18. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    19. Andrea Carriero & Todd E. Clark & Massimiliano Marcellino, 2022. "Specification Choices in Quantile Regression for Empirical Macroeconomics," Working Papers 22-25, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
    20. Kim, Hyun Hak & Swanson, Norman R., 2018. "Mining big data using parsimonious factor, machine learning, variable selection and shrinkage methods," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 339-354.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0235981. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.