Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38901863›Full record

SynthesisBMJ health & care informatics2024

Promising algorithms to perilous applications: a systematic review of risk stratification tools for predicting healthcare utilisation.

Christopher Oddy, Joe Zhang, Jessica Morley, Hutan Ashrafian

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ health & care informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Beyond techno-optimism: four critical limitations in the UK's AI policy for health care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Can an accurate model be bad?Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Population health management fit lifecycles in analytics.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Christopher OddyDepartment of Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain, Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK christopher.oddy1@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2311-9261
Joe ZhangImperial College London Institute of Global Health Innovation, London, UK.
Jessica MorleyDigital Ethics Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Hutan AshrafianImperial College London Institute of Global Health Innovation, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRisk stratification tools that predict healthcare utilisation are extensively integrated into primary care systems worldwide, forming a key component of anticipatory care pathways, where high-risk individuals are targeted by preventative interventions. Existing work broadly focuses on comparing model performance in retrospective cohorts with little attention paid to efficacy in reducing morbidity when deployed in different global contexts. We review the evidence supporting the use of such tools in real-world settings, from retrospective dataset performance to pathway evaluation.

methodsA systematic search was undertaken to identify studies reporting the development, validation and deployment of models that predict healthcare utilisation in unselected primary care cohorts, comparable to their current real-world application.

resultsAmong 3897 articles screened, 51 studies were identified evaluating 28 risk prediction models. Half underwent external validation yet only two were validated internationally. No association between validation context and model discrimination was observed. The majority of real-world evaluation studies reported no change, or indeed significant increases, in healthcare utilisation within targeted groups, with only one-third of reports demonstrating some benefit. DISCUSSION: While model discrimination appears satisfactorily robust to application context there is little evidence to suggest that accurate identification of high-risk individuals can be reliably translated to improvements in service delivery or morbidity.

conclusionsThe evidence does not support further integration of care pathways with costly population-level interventions based on risk prediction in unselected primary care cohorts. There is an urgent need to independently appraise the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of risk prediction systems that are already widely deployed within primary care.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrimary Health CareHumansRisk AssessmentDecision Support Systems, ClinicalElectronic Health RecordsPrimary Health CarePublic HealthSafety Management

Identifiers

PMID38901863
PMCPMC11191805

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.