ArticleScientific reports2025
Fraud detection and explanation in medical claims using GNN architectures.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Article
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
This paper addresses the critical challenge of fraud detection in medical insurance claims-a pervasive issue causing significant financial losses in healthcare-using Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). Given the intricate nature of healthcare data, traditional fraud detection methods do not inherently capture the complex relationships and patterns among different entities. We explore the potential of GNNs to effectively identify fraudulent claims by modeling the interactions among various entities-such as patients, healthcare providers, diagnoses, and services-as a heterogeneous graph. We employ two state-of-the-art heterogeneous GNN architectures, HINormer (Heterogeneous Information Network Transformer) and HybridGNN, along with a modified homogeneous GNN, RE-GraphSAGE (GraphSAGE "Graph Sample and Aggregate" with relation embeddings), adapted to handle the heterogeneity of healthcare data. The models are evaluated on real-world claims datasets of different sizes, comprising millions of medical activities. For the small-size claims dataset, the HINormer architecture followed by the RE-GraphSAGE architecture achieved the highest F-score (84% and 83%, respectively). For the medium-sized claims dataset, RE-GraphSAGE followed by HINormer achieved the highest F-score (84% and 81%, respectively), and for the large-size claims dataset, HINormer followed by RE-GraphSAGE achieved the highest F-score (82% and 79%, respectively). Additionally, we apply explainability techniques, namely GNNExplainer and PGExplainer, to provide insights into the models' decision-making processes and to examine their medical significance.
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.