Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32357871›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Incorporating machine learning and social determinants of health indicators into prospective risk adjustment for health plan payments.

Jeremy A Irvin, Andrew A Kondrich, Michael Ko, Pranav Rajpurkar, Behzad Haghgoo, Bruce E Landon, Robert L Phillips, Stephen Petterson, Andrew Y Ng, Sanjay Basu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Enhancing Medicaid Social Risk Identification: Comparing Linear and Non-Linear Machine Learning Models with Expert Heuristics.IEEE International Conference on Digital Health. IEEE International Conference on Digital Health · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Risk adjustment for regional healthcare funding allocations with ensemble methods: an empirical study and interpretation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jeremy A IrvinDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, 353 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. jirvin16@cs.stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0395-4403
Andrew A KondrichDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, 353 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Michael KoDepartment of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.
Pranav RajpurkarDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, 353 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Behzad HaghgooDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, 353 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Bruce E LandonDepartment of Healthcare Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Robert L PhillipsCenter for Professionalism & Value in Health Care, American Board of Family Medicine Foundation, Lexington, USA.
Stephen PettersonRobert Graham Center, American Academy of Family Physicians, Leawood, USA.
Andrew Y NgDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, 353 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Sanjay BasuCenter for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk adjustment models are employed to prevent adverse selection, anticipate budgetary reserve needs, and offer care management services to high-risk individuals. We aimed to address two unknowns about risk adjustment: whether machine learning (ML) and inclusion of social determinants of health (SDH) indicators improve prospective risk adjustment for health plan payments.

methodsWe employed a 2-by-2 factorial design comparing: (i) linear regression versus ML (gradient boosting) and (ii) demographics and diagnostic codes alone, versus additional ZIP code-level SDH indicators. Healthcare claims from privately-insured US adults (2016-2017), and Census data were used for analysis. Data from 1.02 million adults were used for derivation, and data from 0.26 million to assess performance. Model performance was measured using coefficient of determination (R

resultsLinear regression without SDH indicators achieved moderate determination (R

conclusionsML improved risk adjustment models and the incorporation of SDH indicators reduced underpayment in several vulnerable populations.

Indexed as

AdultCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth PromotionHumansInsurance, HealthMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRisk AdjustmentSocial Determinants of HealthMachine learningRisk estimationSocial determinants of health

Identifiers

PMID32357871
PMCPMC7195714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.