Cited by 14Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareHealth disparities and outcomes

A Fair Individualized Polysocial Risk Score for Identifying Increased Social Risk in Type 2 Diabetes

Open access
Huang, Yu, Guo, Jingchuan, Donahoo, William T., Lee, Yao An, Fan, Zhengkang, Lu, Ying, Chen, Wei-Han, Tang, Huilin +5 more·2024·Nature Communications

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Racial and ethnic minority groups and individuals facing social disadvantages, which often stem from their social determinants of health (SDoH), bear a disproportionate burden of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and its complications. It is crucial to implement effective social risk management strategies at the point of care. Objective: To develop an electronic health records (EHR)-based machine learning (ML) analytical pipeline to address unmet social needs associated with hospitalization risk in patients with T2D. Methods: We identified real-world patients with T2D from the EHR data from University of Florida (UF) Health Integrated Data Repository (IDR), incorporating both contextual SDoH (e.g., neighborhood deprivation) and individual-level SDoH (e.g., housing instability). The 2015-2020 data were used for training and validation and 2021-2022 data for independent testing. We developed a machine learning analytic pipeline, namely individualized polysocial risk score (iPsRS), to identify high social risk associated with hospitalizations in T2D patients, along with explainable AI (XAI) and fairness optimization. Results: The study cohort included 10,192 real-world patients with T2D, with a mean age of 59 years and 58% female. Of the cohort, 50% were non-Hispanic White, 39% were non-Hispanic Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 5% were other races/ethnicities. Our iPsRS, including both contextual and individual-level SDoH as input factors, achieved a C statistic of 0.72 in predicting 1-year hospitalization after fairness optimization across racial and ethnic groups. The iPsRS showed excellent utility for capturing individuals at high hospitalization risk because of SDoH, that is, the actual 1-year hospitalization rate in the top 5% of iPsRS was 28.1%, ~13 times as high as the bottom decile (2.2% for 1-year hospitalization rate). Conclusion: Our ML pipeline iPsRS can fairly and accurately screen for patients who have increased social risk leading to hospitalization in real word patients with T2D.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-024-52960-9

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [39]Lundberg, S. & Lee, S. -I. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. in Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 4768–4777 (Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 2017).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, Y., Guo, J., Donahoo, W. T., Lee, Y. A., Fan, Z., Lu, Y., Chen, W.-H., Tang, H., Bilello, L., Saguil, A. A., Rosenberg, E., Shenkman, E. A., & Bian, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida Health (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Bian, Jiang
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2024-10-05
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
8653-8653
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403146370
Cited by
14
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK133465)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R24ES036131)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, social determinants of health, hospitalization risk prediction, racial and ethnic disparities, algorithmic fairness, explainable AI, housing instability, neighborhood disadvantage, social needs screening, electronic health records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review