Search Articles

View query in Help articles search

Search Results (1 to 8 of 8 Results)

Download search results: CSV END BibTex RIS


Evaluating Algorithmic Bias in 30-Day Hospital Readmission Models: Retrospective Analysis

Evaluating Algorithmic Bias in 30-Day Hospital Readmission Models: Retrospective Analysis

Except for those noted in footnote c of Table 1, all characteristics showed statistically significant differences between racial and income groups (all P values Demographic characteristics by race and by income in Maryland (n=1,857,658) and Florida (n=8,733,002). a MD: Maryland. b FL: Florida. c P values were computed between racial groups and between income groups, respectively. All P values are d CCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index.

H Echo Wang, Jonathan P Weiner, Suchi Saria, Hadi Kharrazi

J Med Internet Res 2024;26:e47125

Improving the Prediction of Persistent High Health Care Utilizers: Retrospective Analysis Using Ensemble Methodology

Improving the Prediction of Persistent High Health Care Utilizers: Retrospective Analysis Using Ensemble Methodology

F&P: feature selection and predictions; PHU: persistent high utilizer; non-PHU: nonpersistent high utilizer. The models selected as the layers in the ensemble method were chosen using common techniques, namely assessment of common classification algorithms and random search cross-validation for parameter tuning. Typically, machine learning models are assessed for performance and generalizability.

Stephanie N Howson, Michael J McShea, Raghav Ramachandran, Howard S Burkom, Hsien-Yen Chang, Jonathan P Weiner, Hadi Kharrazi

JMIR Med Inform 2022;10(3):e33212

Extraction of Geriatric Syndromes From Electronic Health Record Clinical Notes: Assessment of Statistical Natural Language Processing Methods

Extraction of Geriatric Syndromes From Electronic Health Record Clinical Notes: Assessment of Statistical Natural Language Processing Methods

This model significantly (P We evaluated this best-performing CRF model on the test set and report per-construct results in addition to overall averages (see Table 5 and Figure 1). The CRF obtained macroaverage F1 scores of 0.394 for phrase-exact, 0.666 for phrase-partial, 0.759 for note, and 0.834 for patient. Microaverage F1 scores were 0.410 for phrase-exact, 0.661 for phrase-partial, 0.787 for note, and 0.851 for patient.

Tao Chen, Mark Dredze, Jonathan P Weiner, Leilani Hernandez, Joe Kimura, Hadi Kharrazi

JMIR Med Inform 2019;7(1):e13039