risk-stratification-indices
Skill62 starsChanged 5 months agoMIT-0View on GitHub
Reasoning skill for clinical risk stratification index selection and interpretation. Use when the user asks about LACE scores, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Elixhauser Index, readmission risk scoring, comorbidity weighting, SDOH Z-codes, Area Deprivation Index, or population health stratification methods.
In this repository41 other files it gives its agents.
- aws-genai-ml-architectSkill
- bioinformatics-on-healthomicsSkill
- biomarker-discoverySkill
- cdisc-complianceSkill
- cell-type-annotationSkill
- cheminformaticsSkill
- claims-analyticsSkill
- claims-billing-rulesSkill
- clinical-data-standardsSkill
- coordination-of-benefitsSkill
- dicom-processingSkill
- digital-pathologySkill
- drug-repurposingSkill
- edc-data-validationSkill
- ehr-data-parsingSkill
- genomic-variant-interpretationSkill
- hedis-measure-specificationSkill
- imaging-study-designSkill
- medical-device-software-complianceSkill
- ml-researcherSkill
- molecular-dockingSkill
- multi-omics-integrationSkill
- multi-omics-pipelineSkill
- ngs-quality-controlSkill
- pa-clinical-policySkill
- pa-decision-automationSkill
- pharmacoepidemiologySkill
- protein-structure-analysisSkill
- provider-denial-workupSkill
- quality-measuresSkill
- quantitative-proteomicsSkill
- radiology-preprocessingSkill
- risk-adjustmentSkill
- risk-adjustment-strategySkill
- rna-seq-analysisSkill
- rwd-cohort-analysisSkill
- scrna-seq-pipelineSkill
- structure-based-drug-designSkill
- trajectory-analysisSkill
- translational-researchSkill
- variant-callingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 113
No PCP visit in 12 months (care disengagement)
- Distinctive: line 126
When risk scores drive reimbursement or payment decisions (requires validated, audited implementation)
- Distinctive: line 127
When stratification results will determine resource allocation across populations
- Distinctive: line 128
When combining indices in novel ways not validated in literature
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Risk Stratification Indices Reasoning
Overview
Guide selection and interpretation of clinical risk stratification indices (LACE, Charlson, Elixhauser) and SDOH factors (Z-codes, ADI) for population health management. Based on validated scoring systems from peer-reviewed literature.
Usage
- Activate when selecting a risk stratification index for a specific use case (readmission, mortality, utilization)
- Activate when interpreting LACE, Charlson, or Elixhauser scores
- Activate when incorporating SDOH factors (Z-codes, ADI) into population health stratification
Core Concepts
Response Format
Apply scoring logic internally. Present the recommended index with justification, scoring interpretation, and risk tier. Do not narrate the full scoring calculation unless asked.
1. Choosing a Risk Stratification Method
What is the use case?
├── 30-day readmission prediction
│ └── Use LACE index (designed for readmission)
├── Long-term mortality risk adjustment
│ └── Use Charlson Comorbidity Index
├── Hospital resource utilization / cost prediction
│ └── Use Elixhauser Comorbidity Index
├── Medicare risk adjustment (payment)
│ └── Use CMS-HCC (Hierarchical Condition Categories)
└── Population health stratification
└── Combine clinical risk (Charlson/Elixhauser) + SDOH factors2. LACE Index (Readmission Risk)
| Component | Scoring | Range |
| L — Length of stay | 1d=1, 2d=2, 3d=3, 4–6d=4, 7–13d=5, ≥14d=7 | 0–7 |
| A — Acuity of admission | Emergent=3, Urgent=2, Elective=0 | 0–3 |
| C — Comorbidity (Charlson) | 0=0, 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, ≥4=5 | 0–5 |
| E — ED visits (prior 6 months) | 0=0, 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, ≥4=4 | 0–4 |
| Total | Sum of L+A+C+E | 0–19 |
Risk tiers: Low (0–4), Moderate (5–9), High (10+)
3. Charlson Comorbidity Index
17 conditions with integer weights:
- Weight 1: MI, CHF, PVD, CVD, dementia, COPD, connective tissue disease, peptic ulcer, mild liver disease, uncomplicated diabetes
- Weight 2: complicated diabetes, hemiplegia, renal disease, non-metastatic cancer
- Weight 3: moderate/severe liver disease
- Weight 6: metastatic tumor, AIDS/HIV
Total score = sum of all applicable weights.
4. Elixhauser Comorbidity Index
| Attribute | Charlson | Elixhauser |
| Conditions | 17 | 31 |
| Weighting | Fixed integer | Varies by model (van Walraven common) |
| Scope | Mortality prediction | Mortality + resource use |
| Mental health | Limited (dementia only) | Depression, psychoses, substance use |
| Best for | Long-term mortality | Hospital utilization, readmission |
5. SDOH Risk Factors
ICD-10 Z-Codes for SDOH
Key ranges: Z55 (education/literacy), Z56 (employment), Z57 (occupational exposure), Z59 (housing/economic — Z59.0 homelessness, Z59.41 food insecurity), Z60 (social environment), Z62 (upbringing/abuse), Z63 (family circumstances), Z65 (psychosocial/legal).
Area Deprivation Index (ADI)
| ADI Percentile | Risk Level | Implication |
| 1–25 | Low deprivation | Standard outreach sufficient |
| 26–50 | Moderate | Enhanced reminder systems |
| 51–75 | High | Care coordination, transportation assistance |
| 76–100 | Very high | Intensive outreach, community health workers |
Incorporating SDOH into Stratification
Weight members higher when:
- Any SDOH Z-code documented in claims
- High ADI score (≥51st percentile)
- Dual-eligible status (Medicare + Medicaid)
- Language barrier (non-English preferred)
- No PCP visit in 12 months (care disengagement)
Common Mistakes
- Wrong: Using Charlson for readmission prediction → Right: Use LACE (purpose-built for 30-day readmission)
- Wrong: Using Elixhauser for long-term mortality → Right: Use Charlson (validated for mortality prediction)
- Wrong: Ignoring SDOH factors in population stratification → Right: Combine clinical index + SDOH for actionable tiers
- Wrong: Applying same outreach to all risk tiers → Right: Tailor interventions by barrier type (transportation, literacy, engagement)
- Wrong: Using ADI alone without clinical risk → Right: ADI indicates access barriers; combine with clinical severity for full picture
- Wrong: Treating all Z-codes as equivalent risk signals → Right: Weight by relevance to the specific outcome (e.g., Z59.0 homelessness is higher barrier than Z56 employment)
When to Escalate
- When risk scores drive reimbursement or payment decisions (requires validated, audited implementation)
- When stratification results will determine resource allocation across populations
- When combining indices in novel ways not validated in literature
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

