Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40217230›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025

Using artificial intelligence to predict patient outcomes from patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review.

Zuzanna Wójcik, Vania Dimitrova, Lorraine Warrington, Galina Velikova, Kate Absolom

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in oncology practice: a communication-centered qualitative study on patient and healthcare professional perspectives.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: addressing gaps, capturing patient experience, and advancing the field.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Zuzanna WójcikUKRI Centre for Doctoral Training in Artificial Intelligence for Medical Diagnosis and Care, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. sczw@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-6214-7736
Vania DimitrovaSchool of Computer Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7001-0891
Lorraine WarringtonLeeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8389-6134
Galina VelikovaLeeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1899-5942
Kate AbsolomLeeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5477-6643

Funding

UK Research and Innovation EP/S024336/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis scoping review aims to identify and summarise artificial intelligence (AI) methods applied to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for prediction of patient outcomes, such as survival, quality of life, or treatment decisions.

introductionAI models have been successfully applied to predict outcomes for patients using mainly clinically focused data. However, systematic guidance for utilising AI and PROMs for patient outcome predictions is lacking. This leads to inconsistency of model development and evaluation, limited practical implications, and poor translation to clinical practice. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis review was conducted across Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM, Digital Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline and Embase databases. Adapted search terms identified published research using AI models with patient-reported data for outcome predictions. Papers using PROMs data as input variables in AI models for prediction of patient outcomes were included.

resultsThree thousand and seventy-seven records were screened, 94 of which were included in the analysis. AI models applied to PROMs data for outcome predictions are most commonly used in orthopaedics and oncology. Poor reporting of model hyperparameters and inconsistent techniques of handling class imbalance and missingness in data were found. The absence of external model validation, participants' ethnicity information and stakeholders involvement was common.

conclusionThe results highlight inconsistencies in conducting and reporting of AI research involving PROMs in patients' outcomes predictions, which reduces the reproducibility of the studies. Recommendations for external validation and stakeholders' involvement are given to increase the opportunities for applying AI models in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID40217230
PMCPMC11987430

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.