Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40459894›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence for Gatekeeping in Referrals to Specialized Care.

Piter Oliveira Vergara, Jeronimo de Conto Oliveira, Rita Mattiello, Alfredo Montelongo, Rudi Roman, Natan Katz, Leandro Krug Wives, Dimitris Varvaki Rados

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Building bridges in migraine management: consensus pathways on best practices across primary and specialist care in Italy.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Piter Oliveira VergaraInstitute of Informatics, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Jeronimo de Conto OliveiraNúcleo de Telessaúde do Rio Grande do Sul (TelessaúdeRS), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Rita MattielloNúcleo de Telessaúde do Rio Grande do Sul (TelessaúdeRS), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Alfredo MontelongoNúcleo de Telessaúde do Rio Grande do Sul (TelessaúdeRS), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Rudi RomanNúcleo de Telessaúde do Rio Grande do Sul (TelessaúdeRS), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Natan KatzNúcleo de Telessaúde do Rio Grande do Sul (TelessaúdeRS), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Leandro Krug WivesInstitute of Informatics, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Dimitris Varvaki RadosNúcleo de Telessaúde do Rio Grande do Sul (TelessaúdeRS), Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into gatekeeping holds significant potential, as it efficiently handles repetitive tasks and can process large amounts of information quickly. Objective: To develop and assess the accuracy of an AI model that enhances the gatekeeping process for referrals to specialized care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study comprised referrals from primary care to endocrinology, gastroenterology, proctology, rheumatology, and urology from a retrospective administrative database of patients in Brazil between June 2016 and April 2019. Analysis was performed between December 2022 and July 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: The algorithm's development and testing comprised 2 stages. Multiple AI models were initially evaluated to train and test the algorithm for categorizing referrals as authorizing or requiring additional information. Subsequently, the model's performance was assessed against an independent set of referrals. Additionally, the current (human) evaluations of gatekeepers were evaluated against the standard. The reference standard was the consensus of 2 physicians with extensive experience. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) were assessed. Results: The electronic system retrieved 45 039 eligible referrals for the development stage (mean [SD] patient age, 51.9 [15.8] years; 25 458 women [56.5%]). An algorithm utilizing word embeddings and a neural network proved the most effective. In the second phase, 1750 referrals (350 for each specialty) showed a 32% authorization rate according to the reference standard. The AI model achieved an overall accuracy of 0.716 (95% IC, 0.694-0.737), with a sensitivity of 0.542 (95% CI, 0.501 to 0.582) and specificity of 0.801 (95% CI, 0.777 to 0.822). Regarding individual specialties, rheumatology exhibited the highest accuracy (0.811; 95% IC, 0.767-0.849), while proctology had the lowest (0.649; 95% IC, 0.597-0.697). The overall AUC-ROC was 0.765 (95% IC, 0.742-0.788). When compared against the consensus standard, the AI model had higher accuracy and specificity and lower sensitivity than the current approach. Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study of referral data, a novel AI model effectively distinguished between referrals that warranted immediate authorization and those that required further information with moderate accuracy; it had higher specificity and lower sensitivity than gatekeepers decisions. Implementing this AI model in the gatekeeping process should combine human judgment and AI support to optimize the referral process.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceReferral and ConsultationAdultAgedAlgorithmsBrazilFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareRetrospective StudiesROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID40459894
PMCPMC12134955

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.