ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Predicting quality measure completion among 14 million low-income patients enrolled in medicaid.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Identifying Social Determinants of Health in Low-Income Populations Within United States Health Systems: A Scoping Review.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Optimal machine learning models and factors for global infectious diseases: An ecological analysis.Infectious medicine · 2026Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low-income populations have disproportionately low completion of recommended healthcare services, from missed vaccinations to cancer screenings. While machine learning models help identify high-risk patients for targeted treatment, they have rarely been evaluated for quality measure gap completion-or among low-income populations underrepresented in typical datasets. Analyzing 14.2 million Medicaid recipients-including those excluded from electronic health records and without prior utilization-we developed models to predict gaps in nine nationally adopted quality measures, including preventive care and chronic disease management. Using clinical data to prioritize outreach, the clinical-only model improved accuracy by 32.5 percentage points (pp) over non-predictive methods such as alphabetical calling or birthday reminders (AUROC: 0.88, F1-score: 0.69). Incorporating social determinants of health data further improved performance by 2.0pp in accuracy (to 84.5%) and increased F1-score by 5.0pp (to 0.74), with no change in AUROC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve). Compared to the clinical-only model, the SDoH model also reduced pre-existing Black-White disparities in prediction accuracy. Model performance was especially sensitive to SDoH factors like healthcare workforce and facility availability.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.