ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Diagnostic framework to validate clinical machine learning models locally on temporally stamped data.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explainable Machine Learning Predictive Models for Surgical Site Infections: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Machine Learning and Hyperparameter Optimization Methods for Low-Cost COSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Temporal Machine Learning Models for Classifying Suspected Dengue Cases in Mexico Using Surveillance Data from 2025.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pathogen prevalence, feature composition and cross-centre generalisability of machine learning diagnostic models for multi-pathogen respiratory infection.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Cost-Benefit Analysis of Preventing Acute Care Use in Oncology Patients Following Systemic Therapy Using Medicare Claims Data: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Diagnostic framework to validate clinical machine learning models locally on temporally stamped data.Communications medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReal-world medical environments such as oncology are highly dynamic due to rapid changes in medical practice, technologies, and patient characteristics. This variability, if not addressed, can result in data shifts with potentially poor model performance. Presently, there are few easy-to-implement, model-agnostic diagnostic frameworks to vet machine learning models for future applicability and temporal consistency.
methodsWe extracted clinical data from EHR for a cohort of over 24,000 patients who received antineoplastic therapy within a distinct year. The label of this study are acute care utilization (ACU) events, i.e., emergency department visits and hospitalizations, within 180 days of treatment initiation. Our cross-sectional data spans treatment initiation points from 2010-2022. We implemented three models within our validation framework: Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), Random Forest (RF), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost).
resultsHere, we introduce a model-agnostic diagnostic framework to validate clinical machine learning models on time-stamped data, consisting of four stages. First, the framework evaluates performance by partitioning data from multiple years into training and validation cohorts. Second, it characterizes the temporal evolution of patient outcomes and characteristics. Third, model longevity and trade-offs between data quantity and recency are explored. Finally, feature importance and data valuation algorithms are applied for feature reduction and data quality assessment. When applied to predicting ACU in cancer patients, the framework highlights fluctuations in features, labels, and data values over time.
conclusionsThe work in this study emphasizes the importance of data timeliness and relevance. The results on ACU in cancer patients show moderate signs of drift and corroborate the relevance of temporal considerations when validating machine learning models for deployment at the point of care.
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.