ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Development of Machine Learning Algorithms for Identifying Patients With Limited Health Literacy.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep Learning-based Assessment of Eyelid and Periorbital Parameters: Assisting Diagnosis and Treatment Planning in Blepharoptosis.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleLimited health literacy (HL) leads to poor health outcomes, psychological stress, and misutilization of medical resources. Although interventions aimed at improving HL may be effective, identifying patients at risk of limited HL in the clinical workflow is challenging. With machine learning (ML) algorithms based on readily available data, healthcare professionals would be enabled to incorporate HL screening without the need for administering in-person HL screening tools. AIMS AND
objectivesDevelop ML algorithms to identify patients at risk for limited HL in spine patients.
methodsBetween December 2021 and February 2023, consecutive English-speaking patients over the age of 18 and new to an urban academic outpatient spine clinic were approached for participation in a cross-sectional survey study. HL was assessed using the Newest Vital Sign and the scores were divided into limited (0-3) and adequate (4-6) HL. Additional patient characteristics were extracted through a sociodemographic survey and electronic health records. Subsequently, feature selection was performed by random forest algorithms with recursive feature selection and five ML models (stochastic gradient boosting, random forest, Bayes point machine, elastic-net penalized logistic regression, support vector machine) were developed to predict limited HL.
resultsSeven hundred and fifty-three patients were included for model development, of whom 259 (34.4%) had limited HL. Variables identified for predicting limited HL were age, Area Deprivation Index-national, Social Vulnerability Index, insurance category, Body Mass Index, race, college education, and employment status. The Elastic-Net Penalized Logistic Regression algorithm achieved the best performance with a c-statistic of 0.766, calibration slope/intercept of 1.044/-0.037, and Brier score of 0.179.
conclusionElastic-Net Penalized Logistic Regression had the best performance when compared with other ML algorithms with a c-statistic of 0.766, calibration slope/intercept of 1.044/-0.037, and a Brier score of 0.179. Over one-third of patients presenting to an outpatient spine center were found to have limited HL. While this algorithm is far from being used in clinical practice, ML algorithms offer a potential opportunity for identifying patients at risk for limited HL without administering in-person HL assessments. This could possibly enable screening and early intervention to mitigate the potential negative consequences of limited HL without taxing the existing clinical workflow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.