ArticleJMIR AI2025
Deep Learning Models to Predict Diagnostic and Billing Codes Following Visits to a Family Medicine Practice: Development and Validation Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intelligent documentation in medical education: can AI replace manual case logging?JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Article
- SecureEdge-MedChain: A Post-Quantum Blockchain and Federated Learning Framework for Real-Time Predictive Diagnostics in IoMT.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite significant time spent on billing, family physicians routinely make errors and miss billing opportunities. In other disciplines, machine learning models have predicted Current Procedural Terminology codes with high accuracy. Objective: Our objective was to derive machine learning models capable of predicting diagnostic and billing codes from notes recorded in the electronic medical record. Methods: We conducted a retrospective algorithm development and validation study involving an academic family medicine practice. Visits between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2020, containing a physician-authored note and an invoice in the electronic medical record were eligible for inclusion. We trained 2 deep learning models and compared their predictions to codes submitted for reimbursement. We calculated accuracy, recall, precision, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: Of the 245,045 visits eligible for inclusion, 198,802 (81%) were included in model development. Accuracy was 99.8% and 99.5% for the diagnostic and billing code models, respectively. Recall was 49.4% and 70.3% for the diagnostic and billing code models, respectively. Precision was 55.3% and 76.7% for the diagnostic and billing code models, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.983 for the diagnostic code model and 0.993 for the billing code model. Conclusions: We developed models capable of predicting diagnostic and billing codes from electronic notes following visits to a family medicine practice. The billing code model outperformed the diagnostic code model in terms of recall and precision, likely due to fewer codes being predicted. Work is underway to further enhance model performance and assess the generalizability of these models to other family medicine practices.
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.