Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37558245›Full record

ReviewBMJ health & care informatics2023

Road map for clinicians to develop and evaluate AI predictive models to inform clinical decision-making.

Nehal Hassan, Robert Slight, Graham Morgan, David W Bates, Suzy Gallier, Elizabeth Sapey, Sarah Slight

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ health & care informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. [Artificial intelligence algorithm for bone age estimation].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nehal HassanSchool of Pharmacy, Newcastle University School of Pharmacy, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8302-5769
Robert SlightFaculty of Medical Sciences, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Graham MorganSchool of Computing, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
David W BatesDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Suzy GallierPIONEER Health Data Research Hub, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Elizabeth SapeyPIONEER Health Data Research Hub, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3454-5482
Sarah SlightSchool of Pharmacy, Newcastle University School of Pharmacy, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK Sarah.Slight@newcastle.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_21015Medical Research Council MC_PC_21055
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPredictive models have been used in clinical care for decades. They can determine the risk of a patient developing a particular condition or complication and inform the shared decision-making process. Developing artificial intelligence (AI) predictive models for use in clinical practice is challenging; even if they have good predictive performance, this does not guarantee that they will be used or enhance decision-making. We describe nine stages of developing and evaluating a predictive AI model, recognising the challenges that clinicians might face at each stage and providing practical tips to help manage them.

findingsThe nine stages included clarifying the clinical question or outcome(s) of interest (output), identifying appropriate predictors (features selection), choosing relevant datasets, developing the AI predictive model, validating and testing the developed model, presenting and interpreting the model prediction(s), licensing and maintaining the AI predictive model and evaluating the impact of the AI predictive model. The introduction of an AI prediction model into clinical practice usually consists of multiple interacting components, including the accuracy of the model predictions, physician and patient understanding and use of these probabilities, expected effectiveness of subsequent actions or interventions and adherence to these. Much of the difference in whether benefits are realised relates to whether the predictions are given to clinicians in a timely way that enables them to take an appropriate action.

conclusionThe downstream effects on processes and outcomes of AI prediction models vary widely, and it is essential to evaluate the use in clinical practice using an appropriate study design.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical Decision-MakingHumansResearch Designartificial intelligencedecision support systems, clinicalpreventive medicine

Identifiers

PMID37558245
PMCPMC10414079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.