Search Results (1 to 8 of 8 Results)
Download search results: CSV END BibTex RIS
Skip search results from other journals and go to results- 3 JMIR Medical Informatics
- 2 Journal of Medical Internet Research
- 1 JMIR Formative Research
- 1 JMIR Research Protocols
- 1 Online Journal of Public Health Informatics
- 0 Medicine 2.0
- 0 Interactive Journal of Medical Research
- 0 iProceedings
- 0 JMIR Human Factors
- 0 JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
- 0 JMIR mHealth and uHealth
- 0 JMIR Serious Games
- 0 JMIR Mental Health
- 0 JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies
- 0 JMIR Preprints
- 0 JMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology
- 0 JMIR Medical Education
- 0 JMIR Cancer
- 0 JMIR Challenges
- 0 JMIR Diabetes
- 0 JMIR Biomedical Engineering
- 0 JMIR Data
- 0 JMIR Cardio
- 0 Journal of Participatory Medicine
- 0 JMIR Dermatology
- 0 JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting
- 0 JMIR Aging
- 0 JMIR Perioperative Medicine
- 0 JMIR Nursing
- 0 JMIRx Med
- 0 JMIRx Bio
- 0 JMIR Infodemiology
- 0 Transfer Hub (manuscript eXchange)
- 0 JMIR AI
- 0 JMIR Neurotechnology
- 0 Asian/Pacific Island Nursing Journal
- 0 JMIR XR and Spatial Computing (JMXR)
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section

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.
J Med Internet Res 2024;26:e47125
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section

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.
JMIR Med Inform 2022;10(3):e33212
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section

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.
JMIR Med Inform 2019;7(1):e13039
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section