ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026
In vitro to in vivo translation of artificial intelligence for clinical use: screening for acute coronary syndrome to identify ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- In vivo clinical effectiveness of artificial intelligence screening for acute coronary syndrome: testing real-world performance.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe integration of predictive models into live clinical care requires scientific testing before implementation to ensure patient safety. We built and technically implemented a model that predicts which patients require an electrocardiogram (ECG) to screen for heart attacks within 10 minutes of their arrival to the Emergency Department. We developed a structured framework for the in vitro to in vivo translation of the model through implementation as clinical decision support (CDS). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe CDS ran as a silent pilot for 2 months. We conducted (1) a Technical Component Analysis to ensure each part of the CDS coding functioned as planned, and (2) a Technical Fidelity Analysis to ensure agreement between the CDS's in vivo and the model's in vitro screening decisions.
resultsThe Technical Component Analysis indicated several small coding errors in CDS components that were addressed. During this period, the CDS processed 18 335 patient encounters. CDS fidelity to the model reflected raw agreement of 95.5% (CI, 95.2%-95.9%) and kappa of 87.6% (CI, 86.7%-88.6%). Additional coding errors were identified and were corrected. DISCUSSION: Our structured framework for the in vitro to in vivo translation of our predictive model uncovered ways to improve performance in vivo and the validity of risk assessment decisions. Testing predictive models on live care data and accompanying analyses is necessary to safely implement a predictive model for clinical use.
conclusionWe developed a method for the translation of our model from in vitro to in vivo that can be utilized with other applications of predictive modeling in healthcare.
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.