ArticleScientific reports2026
Revenue-sensitive evaluation of AI-assisted ICD-10-CM coding and human-AI collaboration under dual DRG payment systems.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automated ICD-10-CM coding is critical for hospital reimbursement under Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) payment systems, yet standard metrics weight all errors equally. This study evaluated 11 models on MIMIC-IV under heterogeneous conditions (the full 7942-code space, top-50 self-trained baselines, and 200-admission zero-shot LLM samples) and proposed two revenue-sensitive metrics: the Revenue Sensitivity Index (RSI) and Coding Reimbursement Score (CRS). Performance was compared across US Medicare Severity DRG (MS-DRG) and Taiwan DRG (Tw-DRG) systems, with five human-AI review strategies simulated. PLM-ICD achieved the highest micro-averaged F1 (0.5934), while open-source zero-shot LLMs performed markedly worse in this exploratory comparison. A 26.5% CRS gap separated the best and worst fine-tuned models. Rankings were identical under both DRG schemes (Spearman ρ = 1.00), indicating stability under a tiered Tw-DRG approximation (93.9% coverage), not the official grouper. At a 20% review rate, revenue-targeted prioritization achieved 43.2% CRS reduction versus 20.0% for random sampling, reaching 91% of the oracle bound. Revenue-aware evaluation captures financially meaningful differences missed by standard metrics, and revenue-guided human-AI collaboration emerges as a candidate deployment framework requiring prospective validation.
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.