ABSTRACT
Objective To compare the effectiveness of multiple artificial intelligence (AI) models with unweighted Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) in opioid use disorder (OUD) prediction.
Materials and Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of deidentified claims data from 2009 to 2020. The study cohort includes 474,208 patients. Cases are prescription opioid users with at least one diagnosis of OUD or at least one prescription for buprenorphine or methadone. Controls are prescription opioid users with no OUD diagnoses or buprenorphine or methadone prescriptions. Cases and controls are matched based on age, sex, opioid use duration and longitudinal data availability. OUD prediction performance of logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), XGBoost, long short-term memory (LSTM), transformer, our proposed AI model for OUD prediction (MUPOD), and the unweighted ORT were assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score and AUC.
Results Data includes 474,208 patients; 269,748 were females with an average age of 56.78 years. On 100 randomly selected test sets including 47,396 patients, MUPOD can predict OUD more efficiently (AUC=0.742±0.021) compared to LR (AUC=0.651±0.025), RF (AUC=0.679±0.026), XGBoost (AUC=0.690±0.027), LSTM (AUC=0.706±0.026), transformer (AUC=0.725±0.024) as well as the unweighted ORT model (AUC=0.559±0.025).
Discussion OUD is a leading cause of death in the United States. AI can be harnessed with available claims data to produce automated OUD prediction tools. We compared the effectiveness of AI models for OUD prediction and showed that AI can predict OUD more effectively than the unweighted ORT tool.
Conclusion Embedding AI algorithms into clinical care may assist clinicians in risk stratification and management of patients receiving opioid therapy.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
None
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Use of this data for this study was approved as an exempt protocol by The University of Kentucky's Institutional Review Board.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The dataset is available from IBM at https://www.ibm.com/products/marketscan-research-databases.
