ArticleTelemedicine reports2025
Machine Learning-Based Prediction of No-Show Telemedicine Encounters.
Article in Telemedicine reports, 2025. 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.
- Prediction without intervention: why fifteen years of no-show models have not closed the loop on patient adherence.Frontiers in digital health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of machine learning (ML) models in predicting patient no-shows for telemedicine appointments within Peruvian health system and identify key predictors of nonattendance. Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study using anonymized data (June 2019-November 2023) from "Teleatiendo." The dataset included over 1.5 million completed appointments and about 64,000 no-shows (4.1%), focusing on teleorientation and telemonitoring. Predictor variables included patient demographics, socioeconomic factors, health care facility characteristics, appointment timing, and telemedicine service types. A 70% training, 10% validation, and 20% testing split were used over 10 iterations, with hyperparameter tuning performed on the validation set to identify optimal model parameters. Multiple ML approaches-random forest, XGBoost, LightGBM, and anomaly detection-were implemented in combination with undersampling and cost-sensitive learning to address class imbalance. Performance was evaluated using precision, recall, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), F1-score, and accuracy. Results: Of the models tested, undersampling with XGBoost achieved a precision of 0.115 (±0.001), recall of 0.654 (±0.005), specificity of 0.786 (±0.002), AUC of 0.720 (±0.002), and accuracy of 0.780 (±0.002). In contrast, cost-sensitive XGBoost exhibited a balanced performance with a precision of 0.123 (±0.001), recall of 0.639 (±0.006), specificity of 0.805 (±0.004), AUC of 0.722 (±0.001), and accuracy of 0.799 (±0.003). Additionally, cost-sensitive random forest achieved the highest specificity (0.843 ± 0.002) and accuracy (0.832 ± 0.001) but recorded a lower recall (0.585 ± 0.004), while cost-sensitive LightGBM and balanced random forest yielded performance metrics similar to cost-sensitive XGBoost. Isolation forest, used for abnormality detection, demonstrated the lowest performance. Conclusions: ML models can moderately predict telemedicine no-shows in Peru, with cost-sensitive boosting techniques enhancing the identification of high-risk patients. Key predictors reflect both individual behavior and system-level contexts, suggesting the need for tailored, context-specific interventions. These findings can inform targeted strategies to optimize telemedicine, improve appointment adherence, and promote equitable health care access.
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.