ArticleScientific reports2025
A robust and interpretable ensemble machine learning model for predicting healthcare insurance fraud.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Evaluating TabPFN: a transformer-based foundation model for explainable health insurance claim prediction.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a predictive model for pathological upgrading in colorectal polyps based on endoscopic forceps biopsy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Healthcare insurance fraud imposes a significant financial burden on healthcare systems worldwide, with annual losses reaching billions of dollars. This study aims to improve fraud detection accuracy using machine learning techniques. Our approach consists of three key stages: data preprocessing, model training and integration, and result analysis with feature interpretation. Initially, we examined the dataset's characteristics and employed embedded and permutation methods to test the performance and runtime of single models under different feature sets, selecting the minimal number of features that could still achieve high performance. We then applied ensemble techniques, including Voting, Weighted, and Stacking methods, to combine different models and compare their performances. Feature interpretation was achieved through partial dependence plots (PDP), SHAP, and LIME, allowing us to understand each feature's impact on the predictions. Finally, we benchmarked our approach against existing studies to evaluate its advantages and limitations. The findings demonstrate improved fraud detection accuracy and offer insights into the interpretability of machine learning models in this context.
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.