ArticleJAMIA open2025
Deploying machine learning models in clinical settings: a real-world feasibility analysis for a model identifying adult-onset type 1 diabetes initially classified as type 2.
Article in JAMIA open, 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.
- EMMA-STRAT: a multi-omics based machine learning framework for stratification of endometrial carcinoma molecular subtypes and MSI status.BioData mining · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence-driven therapeutics for disease modification in type 1 diabetes: a digital public health and clinical translation framework.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluates the performance and deployment feasibility of a machine learning (ML) model to identify adult-onset type 1 diabetes (T1D) initially coded as type 2 on electronic medical records (EMRs) from a health information exchange (HIE). To our knowledge, this is the first evaluation of such a model on real-world HIE data. Materials and Methods: An existing ML model, trained on national US EMR data, was tested on a regional HIE dataset, after several adjustments for compatibility. A localized model retrained on the regional dataset was compared to the national model. Discrepancies between the 2 datasets' features and cohorts were also investigated. Results: The national model performed well on HIE data (AUROC = 0.751; precision at 5% recall [PR5] = 25.5%), and localization further improved performance (AUROC = 0.774; PR5 = 35.4%). Differences in the 2 models' top predictors reflected the discrepancies between the datasets and gaps in HIE data capture. Discussion: The adjustments needed for testing on HIE data highlight the importance of aligning algorithm design with deployment needs. Moreover, localization increased precision, making it more appealing for patient screening, but added complexity and may impact scalability. Additionally, while HIEs offer opportunities for large-scale deployment, data inconsistencies across member organizations could undermine accuracy and providers' trust in ML-based tools. Conclusion: Our findings offer valuable insights into the feasibility of at-scale deployment of ML models for high-risk patient identification. Although this work focuses on detecting potentially misclassified T1D, our learnings can also inform other applications.
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.