Articlenpj health systems2026
Transferring healthcare risk prediction models between Medicaid populations: a transfer learning evaluation.
Article in npj health systems, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cross-state deployment of Medicaid risk prediction models is challenged by demographic, policy, and care-delivery differences that create domain shift. We evaluated transfer learning methods for predicting acute care utilisation between Washington (source; n = 20,744) and Virginia (target; n = 28,901) Medicaid populations enrolled in high-risk care management, where outcome prevalence differed markedly (9.4% vs 25.6%). Nine approaches were compared: source-only and target-only logistic regression, prototypical networks, domain-adversarial neural networks, causal transfer learning, TabTransformer, Enhanced MAML, a meta-ensemble, and a simple average ensemble. On the Virginia hold-out set, the meta-ensemble achieved the highest discrimination (AUC 0.728, 95% CI 0.691-0.764) and best calibration (Brier 0.193, 95% CI 0.180-0.207). Source-only transfer performed similarly (AUC 0.725), with no significant difference (p = 0.454), and both outperformed target-only logistic regression (AUC 0.628; p < 0.001). Enhanced MAML (AUC 0.677) did not improve over naive transfer. Post-hoc isotonic regression substantially improved calibration across models, underscoring the importance of prevalence adjustment. Fairness analyses showed lower race/ethnicity equalized odds differences for target-adapted models (0.132-0.157) than source-only transfer (0.897), though disparities persisted. Findings suggest simple transfer plus recalibration can match complex methods; broader validation is needed.
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.