ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Label Accuracy in Electronic Health Records and Its Impact on Machine Learning Models for Early Prediction of Gestational Diabetes: 3-Step Retrospective Validation Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Based Early Prediction of Gestational Diabetes Using First-Trimester Laboratory Parameters.Cureus · 2026Article
- Real-world prediction of early-onset dementia by health record data: A multi-center machine learning study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- Evaluation of machine learning models for early prediction of gestational diabetes using retrospective electronic health records from current and previous pregnancies.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- Patient-Centred Gestational Diabetes Care: Preference Elicitation Methods and Machine Learning Innovations.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several studies have used electronic health records (EHRs) to build machine learning models predicting the likelihood of developing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) later in pregnancy, but none have described validation of the GDM "label" within the EHRs. Objective: This study examines the accuracy of GDM diagnoses in EHRs compared with a clinical team database (CTD) and their impact on machine learning models. Methods: EHRs from 2018 to 2022 were validated against CTD data to identify true positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), and false negatives (FN). Logistic regression models were trained and tested using both EHR and validated labels, whereafter simulated label noise was introduced to increase FP and FN rates. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) and average precision (AP). Results: Among 3952 patients, 3388 (85.7%) were correctly identified with GDM in both databases, while 564 cases lacked a GDM label in EHRs, and 771 were missing a corresponding CTD label. Overall, 32,928 (87.5%) of cases were TN, 3388 (9%) TP, 771 (2%) FP, and 564 (1.5%) FN. The model trained and tested with validated labels achieved an ROC AUC of 0.817 and an AP of 0.450, whereas the same model tested using EHR labels achieved 0.814 and 0.395, respectively. Increased label noise during training led to gradual declines in ROC AUC and AP, while noise in the test set, especially elevated FP rates, resulted in marked performance drops. Conclusions: Discrepancies between EHR and CTD diagnoses had a limited impact on model training but significantly affected performance evaluation when present in the test set, emphasizing the importance of accurate data validation.
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.