America's Future · Cohort Watch

Children 2–6 — well-child visits

Aggregate count of young children behind on routine well-child visits. AGGREGATE ONLY — no child is identified or tracked; routing for any individual concern is to a clinician, NCMEC, Childhelp, or 911.

Low gap · 22%Overall priority rank #6

What one action helps most

Maintain + monitor

Gap and risk are contained; keep current screening cadence and watch the trend.

A signal to act, not a diagnosis.

Priority

?

Intervention-priority score

priority = screening gap × risk weight × log₁₀(size). It ranks where a single action closes the biggest closable gap. Higher = act sooner. It is aggregate decision-support, not a diagnosis.

44

Screening gap

?

Screening gap

The share of this cohort with an open screening gap (0–100%). Higher means more people are due for a screening they have not yet had.

22%

Size

?

Cohort size

The number of people in this aggregate group — a count only, never a list. Larger high-gap groups rank higher because one action reaches more people.

14,750

Risk factors
?

Risk factors

The aggregate drivers behind this cohort's overall risk, each weighted 0–1. The heaviest factor is the most useful place to target outreach.

  • Rural clinic capacity57%
  • Caregiver work hours44%

Trend over time
?

Trend

Compares the screening gap in the most recent period to the one before it. A falling gap is improving (fewer people unscreened); rising is worsening.

Improving

Screening gap down 2 pts vs Q3 2025.

Screening gap by period for Children 2–6 — well-child visits
PeriodScreening gapRisk
Q1 202531%50%
Q2 202527%49%
Q3 202524%48%
Q4 202522%48%

Provable-first: a SHA-256 over this cohort's exact aggregate numbers and the published method.

cohort.audit
$ priority "Children 2–6 — well-child visits"
gap=22% risk=48% size=14750
priority=44
sha256: 5503b374b228b2147cc22ee720555ef54e77ae7b95cb8ee55960a9e6062549c6

Ask AI

AI can be wrong. Not medical, legal, or financial advice.