A health equity monitoring framework based on process mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the United States, there is a proposal to link hospital Medicare payments with health equity measures, signaling a need to precisely measure equity in healthcare delivery. Despite significant research demonstrating disparities in health care outcomes and access, there is a noticeable gap in tools available to assess health equity across various health conditions and treatments. The available tools often focus on a single area of patient care, such as medication delivery, but fail to examine the entire health care process. The objective of this study is to propose a process mining framework to provide a comprehensive view of health equity. Using event logs which track all actions during patient care, this method allows us to look at disparities in single and multiple treatment steps, but also in the broader strategy of treatment delivery. We have applied this framework to the management of patients with sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), focusing on sex and English language proficiency. We found no significant differences between treatments of male and female patients. However, for patients who don't speak English, there was a notable delay in starting their treatment, even though their illness was just as severe and subsequent treatments were similar. This framework subsumes existing individual approaches to measure health inequities and offers a comprehensive approach to pinpoint and delve into healthcare disparities, providing a valuable tool for research and policy-making aiming at more equitable healthcare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".