Cited by 32Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesMachine Learning in Healthcare

Integrating Human Services and Criminal Justice Data With Claims Data to Predict Risk of Opioid Overdose Among Medicaid Beneficiaries: A Machine‐Learning Approach

Open access
Lo-Ciganic, Wei-Hsuan, Donohue, Julie M., Hulsey, Eric G., Barnes, Susan, Li, Yuan, Kuza, Courtney C., Yang, Qingnan, Buchanich, Jeanine +4 more·2021·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Health system data incompletely capture the social risk factors for drug overdose. This study aimed to improve the accuracy of a machine-learning algorithm to predict opioid overdose risk by integrating human services and criminal justice data with health claims data to capture the social determinants of overdose risk. This prognostic study included Medicaid beneficiaries (n = 237,259) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania enrolled between 2015 and 2018, randomly divided into training, testing, and validation samples. We measured 290 potential predictors (239 derived from Medicaid claims data) in 30-day periods, beginning with the first observed Medicaid enrollment date during the study period. Using a gradient boosting machine, we predicted a composite outcome (i.e., fatal or nonfatal opioid overdose constructed using medical examiner and claims data) in the subsequent month. We compared prediction performance between a Medicaid claims only model to one integrating human services and criminal justice data with Medicaid claims (i.e., integrated model) using several metrics (e.g., C-statistic, number needed to evaluate [NNE] to identify one overdose). Beneficiaries were stratified into risk-score decile subgroups. The samples (training = 79,087, testing = 79,086, validation = 79,086) had similar characteristics (age = 38±18 years, female = 56%, white = 48%, having at least one overdose = 1.7% during study period). Using the validation sample, the integrated model slightly improved on the Medicaid claims only model (C-statistic = 0.885; 95%CI = 0.877–0.892 vs. C-statistic = 0.871; 95%CI = 0.863–0.878), with small corresponding improvements in the NNE and positive predictive value. Nine of the top 30 most important predictors in the integrated model were human services and criminal justice variables. Using the integrated model, approximately 70% of individuals with overdoses were members of the top risk decile (overdose rates in the subsequent month = 47/10,000 beneficiaries). Few individuals in the bottom 9 deciles had overdose episodes (0-12/10,000). Machine-learning algorithms integrating claims and social service and criminal justice data modestly improved opioid overdose prediction among Medicaid beneficiaries for a large U.S. county heavily affected by the opioid crisis.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0248360

Cites

62 of 62 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

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lo-Ciganic, W.-H., Donohue, J. M., Hulsey, E. G., Barnes, S., Li, Y., Kuza, C. C., Yang, Q., Buchanich, J., Huang, J. L., Mair, C., Wilson, D. L., & Gellad, W. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Allegheny County Department of Human Services (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Donohue, Julie M.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2021-03-18
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
e0248360
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3139034436
Cited by
32
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
FWCI
3.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA044985)
  • Richard King Mellon Foundation (9111)
  • Dean of the Graduate School of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
opioid overdose, Medicaid beneficiaries, criminal justice data, social determinants of health, data integration, gradient boosting, social risk factors, risk stratification, Allegheny County, medical examiner records, health insurance claims data, addiction treatment
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Opiate Overdose, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Analgesics, Opioid, Child, Criminal Law, Female, Humans, Male, Medicaid, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Social Work, United States, Risk Assessment, Young Adult

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