Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42253465›Full record

ArticleLearning health systems2026

Identification of Patients for a Community Health Worker Program Using an Artificial Intelligence Algorithm.

Samuel T Savitz, Brendan Broderick, Margaret M Paul, Timethia J Bonner, Jennifer L Ridgeway, Mikaela Kall, Jane W Njeru

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Samuel T SavitzRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Brendan BroderickRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Margaret M PaulRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3281-6234
Timethia J BonnerRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9273-4092
Jennifer L RidgewayRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Mikaela KallRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Jane W NjeruDivision of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics and Palliative Care, Department of Internal Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligencecommunity health workerselectronic health recordssocial determinants of health

Identifiers

PMID42253465
PMCPMC13239720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.