A review of dynamic Bayesian network techniques with applications in healthcare risk modelling

Coping with an ageing population is a major concern for healthcare organisations around the world. The average cost of hospital care is higher than social care for older and terminally ill patients. Moreover, the average cost of social care increases with the age of the patient. Therefore, it is important to make efficient and fair capacity planning which also incorporates patient centred outcomes. Predictive models can provide predictions which their accuracy can be understood and quantified. Predictive modelling can help patients and carers to get the appropriate support services, and allow clinical decision-makers to improve care quality and reduce the cost of inappropriate hospital and Accident and Emergency admissions. The aim of this study is to provide a review of modelling techniques and frameworks for predictive risk modelling of patients in hospital, based on routinely collected data such as the Hospital Episode Statistics database. A number of sub-problems can be considered such as Length-of-Stay and End-of-Life predictive modelling. The methodologies in the literature are mainly focused on addressing the problems using regression methods and Markov models, and the majority lack generalisability. In some cases, the robustness, accuracy and re-usability of predictive risk models have been shown to be improved using Machine Learning methods. Dynamic Bayesian Network techniques can represent complex correlations models and include small probabilities into the solution. The main focus of this study is to provide a review of major time-varying Dynamic Bayesian Network techniques with applications in healthcare predictive risk modelling.

Macroeconomic information, structural change, and the prediction of fiscal aggregates

Previous research on the prediction of fiscal aggregates has shown evidence that simple autoregressive models often provide better forecasts of fiscal variables than multivariate specifications. We argue that the multivariate models considered by previous studies are small-scale, probably burdened by overparameterization, and not robust to structural changes. Bayesian Vector Autoregressions (BVARs), on the other hand, allow the information contained in a large data set to be summarized efficiently, and can also allow for time variation in both the coefficients and the volatilities. In this paper we explore the performance of BVARs with constant and drifting coefficients for forecasting key fiscal variables such as government revenues, expenditures, and interest payments on the outstanding debt. We focus on both point and density forecasting, as assessments of a country’s fiscal stability and overall credit risk should typically be based on the specification of a whole probability distribution for the future state of the economy. Using data from the US and the largest European countries, we show that both the adoption of a large system and the introduction of time variation help in forecasting, with the former playing a relatively more important role in point forecasting, and the latter being more important for density forecasting.

Prediction of breast cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants

BACKGROUND: Data for multiple common susceptibility alleles for breast cancer may be combined to identify women at different levels of breast cancer risk. Such stratification could guide preventive and screening strategies. However, empirical evidence for genetic risk stratification is lacking. METHODS: We investigated the value of using 77 breast cancer-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for risk stratification, in a study of 33 673 breast cancer cases and 33 381 control women of European origin. We tested all possible pair-wise multiplicative interactions and constructed a 77-SNP polygenic risk score (PRS) for breast cancer overall and by estrogen receptor (ER) status. Absolute risks of breast cancer by PRS were derived from relative risk estimates and UK incidence and mortality rates. RESULTS: There was no strong evidence for departure from a multiplicative model for any SNP pair. Women in the highest 1% of the PRS had a three-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer compared with women in the middle quintile (odds ratio [OR] = 3.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.95 to 3.83). The ORs for ER-positive and ER-negative disease were 3.73 (95% CI = 3.24 to 4.30) and 2.80 (95% CI = 2.26 to 3.46), respectively. Lifetime risk of breast cancer for women in the lowest and highest quintiles of the PRS were 5.2% and 16.6% for a woman without family history, and 8.6% and 24.4% for a woman with a first-degree family history of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The PRS stratifies breast cancer risk in women both with and without a family history of breast cancer. The observed level of risk discrimination could inform targeted screening and prevention strategies. Further discrimination may be achievable through combining the PRS with lifestyle/environmental factors, although these were not considered in this report.