ArticleHealth services research2025
Evaluating a predictive model of avoidable hospital events for race- and sex-based bias.
Article in Health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The limits of debiased clinical language models for cross-hospital generalization.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating a predictive model of avoidable hospital events for race- and sex-based bias.Health services research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether race- and sex-based biases are present in a predictive model of avoidable hospital (AH) events. STUDY SETTING AND
designWe examined whether Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries in Maryland with similar risk scores differed in true AH event risk on the basis of race or sex (n = 324,834). This was operationalized as a logistic regression of true AH events on race or sex with fixed effects for risk score percentile. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE: Beneficiary-level risk scores were derived from 36 months of Medicare FFS claims (April 2019-March 2022) and generated in May 2022. True AH events were observed in claims from June 2022. PRINCIPAL
findingsBlack patients had higher average risk scores than White patients; however, the likelihood of experiencing an AH event did not differ by race when controlling for predicted risk (Marginal Effect [ME] = 0.0003, 95%CI -0.0003 to 0.0009). AH event likelihood was lower in males when controlling for risk level; however, the effect was small (ME = -0.0008, 95% CI -0.0013 to -0.0003) and it did not differ by sex for the target group for intervention (ME = 0.0002, 95% CI -0.0031 to 0.0036).
conclusionsWe implemented a simple bias assessment methodology and found no evidence of meaningful race- or sex-based bias in this model. We encourage the incorporation of bias checks into predictive model development and monitoring processes.
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.