ArticleLearning health systems2026
Identification of Patients for a Community Health Worker Program Using an Artificial Intelligence Algorithm.
Article in Learning health systems, 2026. 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.
- Catching the Wave: AI In Health Services Research.Learning health 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Community health workers (CHWs) help patients navigate community resources. CHW programs can improve health outcomes and reduce healthcare utilization, but identifying eligible patients is challenging. We developed an electronic health record (EHR)-based algorithm trained to predict referrals to a CHW program. Our objective was to evaluate whether an algorithm trained on historical referrals identifies a subgroup of patients that differs from the subgroup identified through questionnaire-based health-related social needs (HRSN) screening alone. Methods: This analysis used data from Mayo Clinic primary care patients in Southeast Minnesota. We developed a gradient boosted time-to-event model that incorporated demographics, diagnoses, HRSN questionnaire responses, and HRSNs derived from clinical notes using natural language processing. We compared the characteristics of algorithm-identified patients with those identified through questionnaires and assessed the variable importance of model features. Results: The algorithm had AUC: 0.87 in the training and 0.92 in the hold out set. Patients flagged by the algorithm tended to use interpreter services more commonly (12.6% vs. 1.3%), have a non-English preferred language (14.1% vs. 2.3%), and have more instances of health literacy documented (5.36 vs. 1.29) compared to patients identified by the HRSN questionnaire. Only 47.0% of patients flagged by the algorithm had responded to the HRSN questionnaire within 2 years. Variable importance was highest for health literacy and financial strain from unstructured notes. Conclusions: The algorithm is a chart-review prioritization tool for referral to the CHW program for patients that may overcome challenges to identifying patients with HRSNs, especially when questionnaire data is incomplete.
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.