Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Predicting Emergency Department Visits for Patients with Type II Diabetes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Machine-learning models can identify type 2 diabetes patients at risk of emergency department visits, with Random Forest, Ensemble Learning, and XGBoost each reaching an ROC AUC of 0.82.

desk verdict The models feed the outcome (ED visit count) back as a feature, so the reported AUC 0.82 is meaningless; the paper is a useful cleaning pipeline but not a valid prediction study. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08984 v1 pith:LWMTE56A submitted 2024-12-12 q-bio.QM cs.LG

Javad M Alizadeh , Jay S Patel , Gabriel Tajeu , Yuzhou Chen , Ilene L Hollin , Mukesh K Patel , Junchao Fei , Huanmei Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QMcs.LG
keywords Type2diabetesMachinelearningEmergencydepartmentvisitsSocialdeterminantsofhealthElectronicrecordsPredictivemodelingRandomForestXGBoost
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to show that machine-learning models trained on electronic health records plus neighborhood-level social determinants can identify which patients with type 2 diabetes are at risk of an emergency department visit. Using a cohort of 34,151 patients and 703,065 visits from the Philadelphia region, the authors compare six classifiers and report that Random Forest, Ensemble Learning, and XGBoost each reach an ROC AUC of 0.82. If the result holds, hospitals could use such models to forecast ED demand and target early interventions at patients with modifiable risk factors, reducing preventable visits and costs. The paper also identifies specific predictors, including age, gaps between visits, abdominal pain, and an income-based concentration index, that could guide care planning.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a feature-construction and modeling pipeline. Raw HSX data, consisting of 76.6 million encounters, 113.9 million vital signs, and 123.2 million diagnoses, is cleaned, standardized, mapped to ICD-10, and reduced to 742 diagnosis categories. Patient ZIP codes are linked to ZCTA-level SDoH indicators, and computed encounter features such as the number of emergency visits and the duration between an ED visit and the prior encounter are added. The resulting 87 features are fed into six classifiers under 10-fold cross-validation, with ROC AUC as the main performance measure.

What would settle it

Retrain the top models with the two computed encounter features, number of emergency visits and duration between an ED visit and the last prior encounter, removed, and compare the AUC against the reported 0.82; if the AUC drops sharply, the result is largely an artifact of predicting the outcome from itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a machine-learning pipeline can predict ED visits among patients with type 2 diabetes by combining clinical encounter data with ZIP-code-level social determinants of health. The authors report that tree-based ensemble models achieve an ROC AUC of 0.82 on held-out test data, with CatBoost at 0.81, KNN at 0.72, and SVC at 0.68, and conclude that Ensemble Learning and Random Forest offer the best balance of discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness. They further claim that the most important features are age, visit-gap statistics, the ICD-10 code R10 (abdominal and pelvic pain), and the Index of Concentration at the Extremes for income.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a patient's past number of emergency visits and the timing around those visits are legitimate predictors, even though the outcome being predicted is whether a patient ever had an emergency visit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hospitals could use the model to forecast near-term ED volume for T2D patients and preposition staff, beds, insulin, and glucose-monitoring supplies.
  • Clinicians could flag high-risk patients from features like age, abdominal pain, smoking, and neighborhood income, and offer same-day appointments or education to prevent ED use.
  • Integrating the model into an EHR as a clinical decision-support alert could trigger early review of patients whose data suggests rising risk.
  • The importance of SDoH features such as ICE income and education suggests community-level outreach may reduce ED visits.
  • Continuous updating of the model with new encounter data would allow it to reflect changing patient behavior and treatment protocols.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A decisive diagnostic test would be to retrain the same models without the two computed encounter features; if the AUC collapses, the reported discrimination is driven by utilization history rather than by clinical or social risk factors.
  • The same workflow could be applied to other chronic conditions or to a prospective cohort where features are fixed at an index date and ED visits are counted only afterward, which would test whether the model predicts future visits rather than describing past ones.
  • If the model's performance transfers to other regions, the ZIP-code-level SDoH features could be used to target community-level interventions in areas with high predicted risk.
  • Given that the cohort excludes patients with hypertension, the models' performance on the excluded majority remains unknown; extending the pipeline to that group would test whether the exclusion changes which features matter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a machine-learning pipeline to predict whether a patient with type 2 diabetes (T2D) visited an emergency department (ED), using HealthShare Exchange EHR data from 2017–2022 linked to ZIP-code-level social determinants of health. The cohort consists of 34,151 patients with T2D without hypertension and 703,065 encounters, with 43% of patients having at least one ED visit. Six classifiers are compared (CatBoost, XGBoost, Random Forest, Ensemble Learning, KNN, SVC); reported AUCs range from 0.68 to 0.82. The abstract concludes that the best models are reliable tools for predicting ED visit risk and estimating future ED demand.

Significance. The problem is important: reducing preventable ED utilization among patients with T2D is a high-value target for health systems. The manuscript's strengths are its large, real-world, multi-source dataset from an underserved urban population and its detailed preprocessing pipeline (standardizing demographic codes, mapping ICD-9 to ICD-10, linking SDoH). However, the central predictive claim is undermined by outcome leakage: features derived from ED visits are used as predictors of the ED-visit outcome. Consequently, the reported AUCs and feature importances do not provide evidence of predictive validity. No code or data is provided, which further limits verification. If the analysis were corrected with a strictly pre-outcome feature set and a temporal validation design, the underlying data could support a useful study; as submitted, the main conclusion is not supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3, Section 2.5] The model's dependent variable is whether a patient ever had an ED visit (Section 2.5: "We converted the number of ED visits into a binary format to indicate whether a patient visited the ED"), but the independent variables include features that are deterministic functions of that outcome. Section 2.3 lists among the computed features "number of emergency visits" and "duration between an ED visit and the last encounter preceding it." Section 2.5 explicitly states "Independent variables included demographics, SDoH, ED visits, common comorbidities, and vital signs." Section 2.4 shows that the final 87 features comprise demographics (5), diagnoses (30), SDoH (30), vital signs (20), and computed features (2), so the two leaked features are part of the model input. A model can obtain near-perfect separation by thresholding "number of emergency visits" at zero, and the gap-duration feature is missing for patients with no ED visits, which tree-based models can exploit via missingness. Figure 6 confirms that "visitation gaps" and "difference between visitation gaps" are among the most important features. This leakage invalidates the discrimination results in Section 3.2 and the abstract's claim that the models are "reliable tools."
  2. [Section 2.5, Section 3.2] The study does not establish a temporal ordering between predictors and outcome. The target is any ED visit during the 2017–2022 observation window, and the features are computed from encounters in the same window, with no index date, no temporal split, and no external validation. The abstract and discussion claim the models can "estimate future ED demand," but the reported evaluation is a same-window classification task, not a prediction of future visits. A prospective or temporal validation (train on an earlier period, predict a later period) is needed to support the future-prediction language.
  3. [Section 3.2, Abstract] The abstract states that Ensemble Learning and Random Forest show superior performance "in terms of discrimination, calibration, and clinical applicability," but the results section reports only AUC, accuracy, precision, recall, and F1. No calibration curve, calibration slope or intercept, Brier score, or decision-curve analysis is presented. The calibration claim is therefore unsupported by the reported evidence.
  4. [Section 2.4] The feature-selection procedure selects the top 30 most frequent diagnoses using the full dataset before the train/test split. Because the full dataset includes the outcome window, this selection can leak outcome information into the modeling process. The selection should be performed inside the cross-validation loop, using only training-fold frequencies, to avoid optimistic performance estimates.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.5] The text says "over 2,000 distinct diagnoses" but Section 2.2 reports 742 distinct diagnosis categories after mapping ICD codes to the first three characters; the manuscript should reconcile these numbers.
  2. [Section 4] The discussion highlights the "ICE occupation indicator" as an important feature, while the abstract and Figure 6 emphasize ICE for income; the authors should clarify which ICE measure was used and define it at first use.
  3. [References] Reference [18] is a dataset of daily PM2.5 concentrations, which is not a social determinant of health; this citation appears to be mislinked in the description of SDoH data sources.
  4. [Section 2.2] In Step 1, the raw data is said to have "8, 97, and 154" unique values for gender, ethnicity, and race; the punctuation is unclear and should be formatted as three separate counts with appropriate labels.
  5. [Data availability] No code or data availability statement is provided; given that the central concern is the construction of computed encounter features, access to the preprocessing code would materially aid verification.
  6. [Title page] The header states that the manuscript was accepted and presented at AI-PHSS 2024; the authors should disclose the relationship between this preprint and the peer-reviewed conference proceedings.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

ED-visit-derived features are used as predictors of ED visits, so the headline AUCs are circular by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.3 ('Connect SDoH factors with EMR') and Section 2.5 ('Train and test machine learning models'); relied on by the Abstract and Section 3.2.]
    "Details of patient encounters, including newly calculated data such as first and last visit dates at HSX facilities, number of emergency visits, and the duration between an ED visit and the last encounter preceding it. ... We converted the number of ED visits into a binary format to indicate whether a patient visited the ED. ... Independent variables included demographics, SDoH, ED visits, common comorbidities, and vital signs."

    The outcome variable is 'whether a patient visited the ED,' obtained by binarizing the number of ED visits. The same quantity, 'number of emergency visits' / 'ED visits,' is explicitly listed among the independent variables. A model given the ED visit count can label any patient with a nonzero count as positive, so the reported AUCs (0.68-0.82) do not measure predictive validity for future ED visits. The additional computed feature 'duration between an ED visit and the last encounter preceding it' is only defined for patients who have had an ED visit, so it also encodes the label. Because these leaked features are present in the training pipeline for all six models, the model comparisons and feature-importance rankings are contaminated.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the models are 'reliable tools for predicting risk of ED visits among patients with T2D,' supported by AUC values around 0.82. However, the manuscript itself states that the target is the binarized number of ED visits and then lists 'ED visits' among the independent variables. This is textbook outcome leakage: the label, or a deterministic function of it, is supplied as an input. Section 2.3 also constructs the 'number of emergency visits' and the 'duration between an ED visit and the last encounter preceding it' from the same ED visit records used to define the label. The top important features named in the abstract, 'visitation gaps' and 'difference between visitation gaps,' are consistent with visit-history-derived leakage. No code, data, or external validation is provided to show that the final 87 features exclude these leaked variables, so the ambiguity cannot be resolved from the paper alone. This is not a self-citation issue; the circularity is internal to the described workflow. The central predictive result therefore reduces by construction to the input, although some non-leaked SDoH, demographic, and vital-sign features are legitimate predictors. Score 8 reflects that the headline AUCs are forced by definition rather than being an independent demonstration of predictive validity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests heavily on feature engineering assumptions, especially the temporal validity of encounter-derived features. The paper contributes no new entities. Model hyperparameters and feature-selection cutoffs are unreported free parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Model hyperparameters (CatBoost, XGBoost, Random Forest, Ensemble, KNN, SVC) = not reported
    Tuned via 10-fold cross-validation; exact values absent, so the reported performance is conditional on unreported choices.
  • Classification threshold = not reported (default 0.5 implied)
    Precision, recall, and F1 are threshold-dependent; no threshold optimization or operating point is described.
  • Number of diagnosis features (top 30) = 30
    Hand-chosen frequency cutoff in Section 2.4; affects the feature set and all downstream results.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Encounter-derived features such as number of ED visits, visitation gaps, and gap differences do not encode the target outcome.
    Section 2.3 and 2.5 list these as inputs while the target is 'whether a patient had an ED visit.' This assumption is load-bearing and likely false; no temporal split is described to prevent leakage.
  • domain assumption Patients with T2D without hypertension represent the target population for the claims.
    Section 2.1 excludes hypertension because it is a common comorbidity; the abstract and discussion generalize to T2D patients broadly, which requires this assumption.
  • domain assumption ZCTA-level SDoH indicators assigned by ZIP code adequately represent individual social determinants.
    Section 2.3 links ACS/SEDAC ZCTA data to each patient's ZIP code; ecological assignment can misclassify individual exposure.
  • domain assumption Top-30 most frequent diagnoses preserve the predictive signal of comorbidity burden.
    Section 2.4 drops rarer diagnoses; this is a modeling choice with no sensitivity analysis.
  • domain assumption The custom ICD-9 to ICD-10 mapping algorithm is accurate enough for feature construction.
    Section 2.2 describes a custom mapping; no validation against a reference standard is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predicting Emergency Department Visits for Patients with Type II Diabetes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LWMTE56A

@misc{pith2026241208984,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predicting Emergency Department Visits for Patients with Type II Diabetes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LWMTE56A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08984}
}
read the original abstract

Over 30 million Americans are affected by Type II diabetes (T2D), a treatable condition with significant health risks. This study aims to develop and validate predictive models using machine learning (ML) techniques to estimate emergency department (ED) visits among patients with T2D. Data for these patients was obtained from the HealthShare Exchange (HSX), focusing on demographic details, diagnoses, and vital signs. Our sample contained 34,151 patients diagnosed with T2D which resulted in 703,065 visits overall between 2017 and 2021. A workflow integrated EMR data with SDoH for ML predictions. A total of 87 out of 2,555 features were selected for model construction. Various machine learning algorithms, including CatBoost, Ensemble Learning, K-nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Classification (SVC), Random Forest, and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), were employed with tenfold cross-validation to predict whether a patient is at risk of an ED visit. The ROC curves for Random Forest, XGBoost, Ensemble Learning, CatBoost, KNN, and SVC, were 0.82, 0.82, 0.82, 0.81, 0.72, 0.68, respectively. Ensemble Learning and Random Forest models demonstrated superior predictive performance in terms of discrimination, calibration, and clinical applicability. These models are reliable tools for predicting risk of ED visits among patients with T2D. They can estimate future ED demand and assist clinicians in identifying critical factors associated with ED utilization, enabling early interventions to reduce such visits. The top five important features were age, the difference between visitation gaps, visitation gaps, R10 or abdominal and pelvic pain, and the Index of Concentration at the Extremes (ICE) for income.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08984 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overview of our project workflow. “pounds” and “lb” for weight, and “Cel” and “[degF]” for temperature. In addition, there are different code systems for the diagnosis, such as ICD-9 and ICD-10. This heterogeneity requires standard conversions to ensure uniformity. For instance, needing conversion to “inch” and “kg” to “pounds” or “lb”. Also, temperature units like “Cel” and “[degF]” require standard conversions… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Percentage of T2D over ZIP code population. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Age distributions of patients with T2D from Philadelphia among different gender and race groups. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Exploratory visit statistics results of patients with T2D, the violin plots for gaps between ED and non-ED [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves of the predictive models and their corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Features (represented by the ICD-10 codes, SDoH code, and vital signs) and the feature importance obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. DT4PCP: A Digital Twin Framework for Personalized Care Planning Applied to Type 2 Diabetes Management

    q-bio.QM 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A digital twin framework for Type 2 Diabetes uses retrospective EHR data to predict ED visits and support personalized care recommendations, with a reported AUC of 0.82.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    National and State Diabetes Trends

    CDC. National and State Diabetes Trends. 2022. Available at: https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/ diabetes/library/reports/reportcard/national-state-diabetes-trends.html

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    About Chronic Diseases

    CDC. About Chronic Diseases. 2024. Available at:https://www.cdc.gov/chronic-disease/about/index. html

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Chronic Conditions among Older Americans

    American Association of Retired Persons. Chronic Conditions among Older Americans. 2009. Available at: https://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/health/beyond_50_hcr_conditions.pdf

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Leading Causes of Death

    CDC. Leading Causes of Death. 2024. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/ leading-causes-of-death.htm

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    WISQARS | Injury Data Reports

    CDC. WISQARS | Injury Data Reports. Available at: https://wisqars.cdc.gov/create-reports/

    work page

  6. [6]

    American Health Care: Health Spend- ing and the Federal Budget

    Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. American Health Care: Health Spend- ing and the Federal Budget. 2018. Available at: https://www.crfb.org/papers/ american-health-care-health-spending-and-federal-budget

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Dieleman, Jackie Cao, Abby Chapin, et al

    Joseph L. Dieleman, Jackie Cao, Abby Chapin, et al. US Health Care Spending by Payer and Health Condition, 1996-2016. JAMA. 2020;323(9):863-884. doi:10.1001/JAMA.2020.0734

    work page arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    National Health Expenditures 2017 Highlights

    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Health Expenditures 2017 Highlights

    work page 2017

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Ruirui Sun, Zeynal Karaca, Herbert S. Wong. Trends in Hospital Emergency Department Visits by Age and Payer, 2006–2015. HCUP Statistical Briefs. 2018. PMID: 30063311

    2006

  2. [10]

    National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2019 Emergency Department Summary Tables

    Ambulatory and Hospital Care Statistics Branch of National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2019 Emergency Department Summary Tables. 2019. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhamcs/web_tables/2019-nhamcs-ed-web-ta...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Yan, Katherine M

    Justin W. Yan, Katherine M. Gushulak, Melanie P. Columbus, et al. Risk factors for recurrent emergency department visits for hyperglycemia in patients with diabetes mellitus. Int J Emerg Med . 2017;10(1):12. doi:10.1186/S12245-017-0150-Y

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Association between Homelessness and Opioid Over- dose and Opioid-related Hospital Admissions/Emergency Department Visits

    Ayae Yamamoto, Jack Needleman, Lillian Gelberg, et al. Association between Homelessness and Opioid Over- dose and Opioid-related Hospital Admissions/Emergency Department Visits. Soc Sci Med. 2019;242:112585. doi:10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2019.112585

    2019

  5. [13]

    Uppal, Puneet Kaur Chehal, Gail Fernandes, et al

    Tegveer S. Uppal, Puneet Kaur Chehal, Gail Fernandes, et al. Trends and Variations in Emergency Depart- ment Use Associated With Diabetes in the US by Sociodemographic Factors, 2008-2017. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(5):E2213867. doi:10.1001/JAMANETWORKOPEN.2022.13867

    2008

  6. [14]

    Washington, Roxanne M

    Raynard E. Washington, Roxanne M. Andrews, Ryan Mutter. Emergency Department Visits for Adults with Diabetes, 2010. HCUP Statistical Briefs. 2013. Available at: https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/ statbriefs/sb167.jsp

    2010

  7. [15]

    Williams

    Gareth H. Williams. The determinants of health: structure, context, and agency. Sociology of Health and Illness. 2003;25(3):131-154. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.00344

    2003

  8. [16]

    Clinical Data Repository (CDR) Overview

    HealthShare Exchange (HSX). Clinical Data Repository (CDR) Overview. 2017. Available at: https:// healthshareexchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/11.20.17_cdr_overview_final.pdf

    2017

  9. [17]

    American Community Survey Data

    The United States Census Bureau. American Community Survey Data. Available at: https://www.census. gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html

  10. [18]

    Daily and Annual PM2.5 Concentrations for the Contiguous United States, 1-km Grids, v1 (2000 - 2016)

    Di Q, Wei Y , Shtein A, et al. Daily and Annual PM2.5 Concentrations for the Contiguous United States, 1-km Grids, v1 (2000 - 2016). NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). 2021. doi:10.7927/0rvr-4538

    doi

  11. [19]

    Available at: https://pandas.pydata.org/

    Pandas - Python Data Analysis Library. Available at: https://pandas.pydata.org/

  12. [20]

    Available at: https://orwh.od.nih.gov/toolkit/ other-relevant-federal-policies/OMB-standards

    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Standards. Available at: https://orwh.od.nih.gov/toolkit/ other-relevant-federal-policies/OMB-standards . 10 Predicting Emergency Department Visits for Patients with Type II Diabetes A PREPRINT

  13. [21]

    Available at: https://imagic.nlm

    I-MAGIC Mapper: Interactive Map-Assisted Generation of ICD Codes. Available at: https://imagic.nlm. nih.gov/imagic/code/map

  14. [22]

    CatBoost: unbiased boosting with categorical features

    Liudmila Prokhorenkova, Gleb Gusev, Aleksandr V orobev, Anna Veronika Dorogush, Andrey Gulin. CatBoost: unbiased boosting with categorical features. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2018;6638-6648. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09516v5

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Popular ensemble methods: an empirical study

    David Opitz, Richard Maclin. Popular ensemble methods: an empirical study. J Artif Intell Res . 1999. doi:10.5555/3013545.3013549

    1999

  16. [24]

    N. S. Altman. An Introduction to Kernel and Nearest-Neighbor Nonparametric Regression. Am Stat . 1992;46(3):175-185. doi:10.1080/00031305.1992.10475879

    1992 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Support-vector networks

    Corinna Cortes, Vladimir Vapnik. Support-vector networks. Mach Learn . 1995;20(3):273-297. doi:10.1007/BF00994018

    1995 doi

  18. [26]

    Random forests

    Leo Breiman. Random forests. Mach Learn. 2001;45(1):5-32. doi:10.1023/A:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  19. [27]

    XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System

    Tianqi Chen, Carlos Guestrin. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. Proc ACM SIGKDD Int Conf Knowl Discov Data Min. 2016;13-17. doi:10.1145/2939672.2939785

    2016

  20. [28]

    Too much covariates in a multivariable model may cause the problem of overfitting.J Thorac Dis

    Zhongheng Zhang. Too much covariates in a multivariable model may cause the problem of overfitting.J Thorac Dis. 2014;6(9):E196. doi:10.3978/J.ISSN.2072-1439.2014.08.33

    2014

  21. [29]

    Hooker, Peter J

    Edmond A. Hooker, Peter J. Mallow, Michelle M. Oglesby. Characteristics and Trends of Emer- gency Department Visits in the United States (2010-2014). J Emerg Med . 2019;56(3):344-351. doi:10.1016/J.JEMERMED.2018.12.025

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    Petrie, Tomasz J

    John R. Petrie, Tomasz J. Guzik, Rhian M. Touyz. Diabetes, Hypertension, and Cardiovascular Disease: Clinical Insights and Vascular Mechanisms. Can J Cardiol. 2018;34(5):575-584. doi:10.1016/J.CJCA.2017.12.005

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Harries, Rony Zachariah, Anil Kapur, et al

    Anthony D. Harries, Rony Zachariah, Anil Kapur, et al. The vital signs of chronic disease management. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2009;103(6):537-540. doi:10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.12.008

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    Gabayan, Michael K

    Gelareh Z. Gabayan, Michael K. Gould, Robert E. Weiss, et al. Emergency Department Vital Signs and Outcomes After Discharge. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24(7):846-854. doi:10.1111/ACEM.13194. 11

    2017 doi

  25. [2017]

    Available at: https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/ statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/downloads/highlights.pdf

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.