Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40100249›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

Enhancing Patient Outcome Prediction Through Deep Learning With Sequential Diagnosis Codes From Structured Electronic Health Record Data: Systematic Review.

Tuankasfee Hama, Mohanad M Alsaleh, Freya Allery, Jung Won Choi, Christopher Tomlinson, Honghan Wu, Alvina Lai, Nikolas Pontikos, Johan H Thygesen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Evaluation of trajectory analysis for disease risk assessment: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

9 authors.

Tuankasfee HamaInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0001-4585-1306
Mohanad M AlsalehInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8043-548X
Freya AlleryInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5580-7237
Jung Won ChoiInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7663-7188
Christopher TomlinsonInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0903-5395
Honghan WuInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0213-5668
Alvina LaiInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8960-8095
Nikolas PontikosUCL Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1782-4711
Johan H ThygesenInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7479-3459

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of structured electronic health records in health care systems has grown rapidly. These systems collect huge amounts of patient information, including diagnosis codes representing temporal medical history. Sequential diagnostic information has proven valuable for predicting patient outcomes. However, the extent to which these types of data have been incorporated into deep learning (DL) models has not been examined.

objectiveThis systematic review aims to describe the use of sequential diagnostic data in DL models, specifically to understand how these data are integrated, whether sample size improves performance, and whether the identified models are generalizable.

methodsRelevant studies published up to May 15, 2023, were identified using 4 databases: PubMed, Embase, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science. We included all studies using DL algorithms trained on sequential diagnosis codes to predict patient outcomes. We excluded review articles and non-peer-reviewed papers. We evaluated the following aspects in the included papers: DL techniques, characteristics of the dataset, prediction tasks, performance evaluation, generalizability, and explainability. We also assessed the risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist to report our findings.

resultsOf the 740 identified papers, 84 (11.4%) met the eligibility criteria. Publications in this area increased yearly. Recurrent neural networks (and their derivatives; 47/84, 56%) and transformers (22/84, 26%) were the most commonly used architectures in DL-based models. Most studies (45/84, 54%) presented their input features as sequences of visit embeddings. Medications (38/84, 45%) were the most common additional feature. Of the 128 predictive outcome tasks, the most frequent was next-visit diagnosis (n=30, 23%), followed by heart failure (n=18, 14%) and mortality (n=17, 13%). Only 7 (8%) of the 84 studies evaluated their models in terms of generalizability. A positive correlation was observed between training sample size and model performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; P=.02). However, 59 (70%) of the 84 studies had a high risk of bias.

conclusionsThe application of DL for advanced modeling of sequential medical codes has demonstrated remarkable promise in predicting patient outcomes. The main limitation of this study was the heterogeneity of methods and outcomes. However, our analysis found that using multiple types of features, integrating time intervals, and including larger sample sizes were generally related to an improved predictive performance. This review also highlights that very few studies (7/84, 8%) reported on challenges related to generalizability and less than half (38/84, 45%) of the studies reported on challenges related to explainability. Addressing these shortcomings will be instrumental in unlocking the full potential of DL for enhancing health care outcomes and patient care.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42018112161; https://tinyurl.com/yc6h9rwu.

Indexed as

Deep LearningElectronic Health RecordsHumansdeep learningdiagnosis codesEHRelectronic health recordspatient outcomespredictionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40100249
PMCPMC11962322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.