# US 2026/0074076 A1 · Generating intervention success probabilities and intelligent ranking of subjects > Agents: this data is available as JSON from the patentgrep API and MCP server — see https://patentgrep.com/llms.txt - Number: US 2026/0074076 A1 - Document ID: US20260074076A1 - Status: Published application - Kind: A1 - Application number: 19/316,994 - Filed: 2025-09-02 - Published: 2026-03-12 - Earliest claimed: 2024-09-06 - Assignees: Oracle International Corporation - Applicants: Oracle International Corporation - Inventors: Nathan Becker; Renee George; Christine Swisher; Graham Bury; Xerxes Beharry; Benjamin Ellis; Jason Weinreb; Josue Martinez-Montero - Web page: https://patentgrep.com/patent/US20260074076A1 ## CPC - G16H 50/30: for calculating health indices; for individual health risk assessment - G16H 40/20: for the management or administration of healthcare resources or facilities, e.g. managing hospital staff or surgery rooms - G16H 50/20: for computer-aided diagnosis, e.g. based on medical expert systems - G16H: HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS, i.e. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR THE HANDLING OR PROCESSING OF MEDICAL OR HEALTHCARE DATA ## Abstract The present disclosure relates to techniques for generating a ranked list of a set of subjects by predicting their potential health benefit from an intervention to prioritize subjects that may be at a risk of a negative outcome and likely to benefit from a proposed intervention. Additionally, the ranking may further account for potential cost-savings associated with early intervention to avoid acute-care utilization by applying a cost-modeling technique. The disclosed techniques may include analyzing subject-specific data, including demographic, clinical, and historical information, to compute a total net-benefit score by combining a predicted benefit probability with cost and revenue metrics. The benefit probability may be calculated using causal inference models to estimate a potential improvement in health outcomes from the proposed intervention or treatment. The disclosed techniques may further facilitate personalized subject care by dynamically updating rankings based on real-time data, enhancing clinical decision-making, and optimizing resource allocation. ## Claims ### Claim 1 A computer-implemented method comprising: identifying a set of subjects flagged for engagement in a potential communication workflow; for each subject of the set of subjects: accessing subject data that identifies one or more historical medical events or one or more characteristics of a subject; generating one or more probabilities, by leveraging one or more causal models, wherein the one or more probabilities include: a first probability associated with a positive outcome if an intervention is performed, a second probability associated with a positive outcome in an absence of the intervention, and a third probability representing a likelihood of the intervention being performed under standard care; generating, using a first mathematical function, a net-benefit bound by combining the one or more probabilities; predicting, via one or more machine-learning models, one or more costs and revenue amounts including: a cost associated with performing the intervention, a cost associated with an acute-care utilization or an emergency department visit due to a negative outcome, and a revenue generated from closing care gaps; and computing, using a second mathematical function, a net-cost saving bound based on the net-benefit bound and the one or more costs and revenue amounts; ranking the set of subjects based on the net-cost saving bounds to generate a ranked list; and initiating one or more preventative measures for one or more subjects of the set of subjects having a high ranking in the ranked list, wherein the one or more preventative measures include scheduling follow-up appointments or checkups, calling the subject for additional diagnostic lab tests, or providing personalized healthcare recommendations. ### Claim 2 (depends on 1) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more causal models include directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), inverse probability weighing (IPW), uplift modeling, propensity score matching (PSM), structural causal modeling (SCM), or structural equation modeling (SEM). ### Claim 3 (depends on 2) The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the one or more causal models are based on one or more binary classifiers implemented via a gradient-boosting technique for predicting the first probability, the second probability, and the third probability. ### Claim 4 (depends on 1) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more costs and revenue amounts are predicted using one or more predictive models including a regression model, a neural network, a Bayesian model, or a reinforcement learning-based approach. ### Claim 5 (depends on 1) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein ranking the set of subjects further comprises applying one or more ranking techniques to generate the ranked list based on the net-cost saving bounds, wherein the one or more ranking techniques include: modified competition ranking, dense ranking, ordinal ranking, standard competition ranking, fractional ranking, Bayesian ranking, RankNet, or XBoostRanker. ### Claim 6 (depends on 1) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the net-benefit bound includes an upper and a lower bound quantifying a likelihood of the subject experiencing a positive outcome from the intervention, and wherein the upper and the lower bounds represent a range of potential benefit estimates. ### Claim 7 (depends on 1) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the positive outcome corresponds to an occurrence of a target outcome resulting from the intervention, and wherein the negative outcome corresponds to an occurrence of an outcome opposite to the target outcome from the intervention. ### Claim 8 (depends on 1) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the subject data includes attributes including age, vitals, lab results, prescriptions, previous admissions and/or clinical history. ### Claim 9 A system comprising: one or more data processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions which, when executed on the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform a set of operations including: identifying a set of subjects flagged for engagement in a potential communication workflow; for each subject of the set of subjects: accessing subject data that identifies one or more historical medical events or one or more characteristics of a subject; generating one or more probabilities, by leveraging one or more causal models, wherein the one or more probabilities include: a first probability associated with a positive outcome if an intervention is performed, a second probability associated with a positive outcome in an absence of the intervention, and a third probability representing a likelihood of the intervention being performed under standard care; generating, using a first mathematical function, a net-benefit bound by combining the one or more probabilities; predicting, via one or more machine-learning models, one or more costs and revenue amounts including: a cost associated with performing the intervention, a cost associated with an acute-care utilization or an emergency department visit due to a negative outcome, and a revenue generated from closing care gaps; and computing, using a second mathematical function, a net-cost saving bounds based on the net-benefit bound and the one or more costs and revenue amounts; ranking the set of subjects based on the net-cost saving bound to generate a ranked list; and initiating one or more preventative measures for one or more subjects of the set of subjects having a high ranking in the ranked list, wherein the one or more preventative measures include scheduling follow-up appointments or checkups, calling the subject for additional diagnostic lab tests, or providing personalized healthcare recommendations. ### Claim 10 (depends on 9) The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more causal models include directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), inverse probability weighing (IPW), uplift modeling, propensity score matching (PSM), structural causal modeling (SCM), or structural equation modeling (SEM). ### Claim 11 (depends on 10) The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more causal models are based on one or more binary classifiers implemented via a gradient-boosting technique for predicting the first probability, the second probability, and the third probability. ### Claim 12 (depends on 9) The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more costs and revenue amounts are predicted using one or more predictive models including a regression model, a neural network, a Bayesian model, or a reinforcement learning-based approach. ### Claim 13 (depends on 9) The system of claim 9, wherein ranking the set of subjects further comprises applying one or more ranking techniques to generate the ranked list based on the net-cost saving bounds, wherein the one or more ranking techniques include: modified competition ranking, dense ranking, ordinal ranking, standard competition ranking, fractional ranking, Bayesian ranking, RankNet, or XBoostRanker. ### Claim 14 (depends on 9) The system of claim 9, wherein the net-benefit bound includes an upper and a lower bound quantifying a likelihood of the subject experiencing a positive outcome from the intervention, and wherein the upper and the lower bounds represent a range of potential benefit estimates. ### Claim 15 (depends on 9) The system of claim 9, wherein the positive outcome corresponds to an occurrence of a target outcome resulting from the intervention, and wherein the negative outcome corresponds to an occurrence of an outcome opposite to the target outcome from the intervention. ### Claim 16 A computer-program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, including instructions configured to cause one or more data processors to perform a set of operations comprising: identifying a set of subjects flagged for engagement in a potential communication workflow; for each subject of the set of subjects: accessing subject data that identifies one or more historical medical events or one or more characteristics of a subject; generating one or more probabilities, by leveraging one or more causal models, wherein the one or more probabilities include: a first probability associated with a positive outcome if an intervention is performed, a second probability associated with a positive outcome in an absence of the intervention, and a third probability representing a likelihood of the intervention being performed under standard care; generating, using a first mathematical function, a net-benefit bound by combining the one or more probabilities; predicting, via one or more machine-learning models, one or more costs and revenue amounts including: a cost associated with performing the intervention, a cost associated with an acute-care utilization or an emergency department visit due to a negative outcome, and a revenue generated from closing care gaps; and computing, using a second mathematical function, a net-cost saving bound based on the net-benefit bound and the one or more costs and revenue amounts; ranking the set of subjects based on the net-cost saving bound to generate a ranked list; and initiating one or more preventative measures for one or more subjects of the set of subjects having a high ranking in the ranked list, wherein the one or more preventative measures include scheduling follow-up appointments or checkups, calling the subject for additional diagnostic lab tests, or providing personalized healthcare recommendations. ### Claim 17 (depends on 16) The computer-program product of claim 16, wherein the one or more causal models include directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), inverse probability weighing (IPW), uplift modeling, propensity score matching (PSM), structural causal modeling (SCM), or structural equation modeling (SEM). ### Claim 18 (depends on 17) The computer-program product of claim 17, wherein the one or more costs and revenue amounts are predicted using one or more predictive models including a regression model, a neural network, a Bayesian model, or a reinforcement learning-based approach. ### Claim 19 (depends on 16) The computer-program product of claim 16, wherein ranking the set of subjects further comprises applying one or more ranking techniques to generate the ranked list based on the net-cost saving bounds, wherein the one or more ranking techniques include: modified competition ranking, dense ranking, ordinal ranking, standard competition ranking, fractional ranking, Bayesian ranking, RankNet, or XBoostRanker. ### Claim 20 (depends on 16) The computer-program product of claim 16, wherein the net-benefit bound includes an upper and a lower bound quantifying a likelihood of the subject experiencing a positive outcome from the intervention, and wherein the upper and lower the bounds represent a range of potential benefit estimates.