↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Machine-Learning Algorithms for Predicting Opioid Overdose Risk Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Opioid Prescriptions

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Network Open, March 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
147 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
147 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
237 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of Machine-Learning Algorithms for Predicting Opioid Overdose Risk Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Opioid Prescriptions
Published in
JAMA Network Open, March 2019
DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0968
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Current approaches to identifying individuals at high risk for opioid overdose target many patients who are not truly at high risk. To develop and validate a machine-learning algorithm to predict opioid overdose risk among Medicare beneficiaries with at least 1 opioid prescription. A prognostic study was conducted between September 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018. Participants (n = 560 057) included fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries without cancer who filled 1 or more opioid prescriptions from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2015. Beneficiaries were randomly and equally divided into training, testing, and validation samples. Potential predictors (n = 268), including sociodemographics, health status, patterns of opioid use, and practitioner-level and regional-level factors, were measured in 3-month windows, starting 3 months before initiating opioids until loss of follow-up or the end of observation. Opioid overdose episodes from inpatient and emergency department claims were identified. Multivariate logistic regression (MLR), least absolute shrinkage and selection operator-type regression (LASSO), random forest (RF), gradient boosting machine (GBM), and deep neural network (DNN) were applied to predict overdose risk in the subsequent 3 months after initiation of treatment with prescription opioids. Prediction performance was assessed using the C statistic and other metrics (eg, sensitivity, specificity, and number needed to evaluate [NNE] to identify one overdose). The Youden index was used to identify the optimized threshold of predicted score that balanced sensitivity and specificity. Beneficiaries in the training (n = 186 686), testing (n = 186 685), and validation (n = 186 686) samples had similar characteristics (mean [SD] age of 68.0 [14.5] years, and approximately 63% were female, 82% were white, 35% had disabilities, 41% were dual eligible, and 0.60% had at least 1 overdose episode). In the validation sample, the DNN (C statistic = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93) and GBM (C statistic = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.94) algorithms outperformed the LASSO (C statistic = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.80-0.89), RF (C statistic = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.84), and MLR (C statistic = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80) methods for predicting opioid overdose. At the optimized sensitivity and specificity, DNN had a sensitivity of 92.3%, specificity of 75.7%, NNE of 542, positive predictive value of 0.18%, and negative predictive value of 99.9%. The DNN classified patients into low-risk (76.2% [142 180] of the cohort), medium-risk (18.6% [34 579] of the cohort), and high-risk (5.2% [9747] of the cohort) subgroups, with only 1 in 10 000 in the low-risk subgroup having an overdose episode. More than 90% of overdose episodes occurred in the high-risk and medium-risk subgroups, although positive predictive values were low, given the rare overdose outcome. Machine-learning algorithms appear to perform well for risk prediction and stratification of opioid overdose, especially in identifying low-risk subgroups that have minimal risk of overdose.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 147 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 237 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 15%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Master 22 9%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 8%
Other 40 17%
Unknown 75 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 16%
Computer Science 19 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 5%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Engineering 11 5%
Other 54 23%
Unknown 91 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 136. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2023.
All research outputs
#310,207
of 25,724,500 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Network Open
#2,094
of 9,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,803
of 364,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Network Open
#42
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,724,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,866 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 128.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,574 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.