ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2025
Development and evaluation of a machine learning model to predict acute care for opioid use disorder among Medicaid enrollees engaged in a community-based treatment program.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 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.
- Artificial intelligence for alcohol, opioid, and cannabis use disorders screening and management: a narrative review of barriers and facilitators to clinical implementation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Development and evaluation of a machine learning model to predict acute care for opioid use disorder among Medicaid enrollees engaged in a community-based treatment program.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo develop machine-learning algorithms for predicting the risk of a hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit for opioid use disorder (OUD) (i.e. OUD acute events) in Pennsylvania Medicaid enrollees in the Opioid Use Disorder Centers of Excellence (COE) program and to evaluate the fairness of model performance across racial groups.
methodsWe studied 20 983 United States Medicaid enrollees aged 18 years or older who had COE visits between April 2019 and March 2021. We applied multivariate logistic regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator models, random forests, and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), to predict OUD acute events following the initial COE visit. Our models included predictors at the system, patient, and regional levels. We assessed model performance using multiple metrics by racial groups. Individuals were divided into a low, medium and high-risk group based on predicted risk scores.
resultsThe training (n = 13 990) and testing (n = 6993) samples displayed similar characteristics (mean age 38.1 ± 9.3 years, 58% male, 80% White enrollees) with 4% experiencing OUD acute events at baseline. XGB demonstrated the best prediction performance (C-statistic = 76.6% [95% confidence interval = 75.6%-77.7%] vs. 72.8%-74.7% for other methods). At the balanced cutoff, XGB achieved a sensitivity of 68.2%, specificity of 70.0%, and positive predictive value of 8.3%. The XGB model classified the testing sample into high-risk (6%), medium-risk (30%), and low-risk (63%) groups. In the high-risk group, 40.7% had OUD acute events vs. 16.5% and 5.0% in the medium- and low-risk groups. The high- and medium-risk groups captured 44% and 26% of individuals with OUD events. The XGB model exhibited lower false negative rates and higher false positive rates in racial/ethnic minority groups than White enrollees.
conclusionsNew machine-learning algorithms perform well to predict risks of opioid use disorder (OUD) acute care use among United States Medicaid enrollees and improve fairness of prediction across racial and ethnic groups compared with previous OUD-related models.
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.