ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026
Enhancing diagnostic precision for rare diseases using case-based reasoning.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to enhance the diagnostic process for rare diseases using case-based reasoning (CBR). CBR compares new cases with historical data, utilizing both structured and unstructured clinical data. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study uses a dataset of 4295 patient cases from the University Hospital Frankfurt. Data were standardized using the OMOP Common Data Model. Three methods-TF, TF-IDF, and TF-IDF with semantic vector embeddings-were employed to represent patient records. Similarity search effectiveness was evaluated using cross-validation to assess diagnostic precision. High-weighted concepts were rated by medical experts for relevance. Additionally, the impact of different levels of ICD-10 code granularity on prediction outcomes was analyzed.
resultsThe TF-IDF method showed a high degree of precision, with an average positive predictive value of 91% in the 10 most similar cases. The differences between the methods were not statistically significant. The expert evaluation rated the medical relevance of high-weighted concepts as moderate. The granularity of ICD-10 coding significantly influences the precision of predictions, with more granular codes showing decreased precision. DISCUSSION: The methods effectively handle data from multiple medical specialties, suggesting broad applicability. The use of broader ICD-10 codes with high precision in prediction could improve initial diagnostic guidance. The use of Explainable AI could enhance diagnostic transparency, leading to better patient outcomes. Limitations include standardization issues and the need for more comprehensive lab value integration.
conclusionWhile CBR shows promise for rare disease diagnostics, its utility depends on the specific needs of the decision support system and its intended clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.