A health equity monitoring framework based on process mining
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it