Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41293989›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026

Evaluation of trajectory analysis for disease risk assessment: a scoping review.

Freya Pollington, Spiros C Denaxas, Kezhi Li, Johan H Thygesen, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Becky White

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Freya PollingtonEpidemiology of Cancer Healthcare and Outcomes (ECHO) Research Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0003-5015-6732
Spiros C DenaxasInstitute of Health Informatics (IHI), University College London, London NW1 2DA, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9612-7791
Kezhi LiInstitute of Health Informatics (IHI), University College London, London NW1 2DA, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3073-3128
Johan H ThygesenInstitute of Health Informatics (IHI), University College London, London NW1 2DA, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7479-3459
Georgios LyratzopoulosEpidemiology of Cancer Healthcare and Outcomes (ECHO) Research Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2873-7421
Becky WhiteEpidemiology of Cancer Healthcare and Outcomes (ECHO) Research Group, Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0643-7890

Funding

British Heart FoundationBritish Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UKCancer Research UKChief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care DirectoratesEconomic and Social Research CouncilEconomic and Social Research Council (UKRI)Engineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UKRI)HCRW_Health and Care Research Wales, Chief Scientist OfficeHealth and Social Care Research and Development DivisionHealth and Social Care Research and Development Division (Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland)Health Data Research UK Big data for Complex Diseases HDR-23012Health Data Research UK Big data for Complex Diseases-HDR-23012Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council (UKRI)National Institute for Health ResearchPublic Health AgencyScottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIncreasingly, structured longitudinal electronic health records (EHRs) are being harnessed to predict risk of having present but as yet undetected disease by analyzing "patient trajectories." Trajectory studies explore clinical event associations, characterize disease trajectories, and enhance risk prediction. This scoping review assesses study characteristics and objectives, identifies model types, and appraises model performance and reporting. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted a scoping review, focused on a PubMed and Web of Science search for studies using temporal EHR sequences to identify disease signatures or predict disease presence.

resultsWe identified 62 studies. Statistical methods, such as testing temporal associations were primarily used for clustering, while deep learning models focused on outcome prediction. Sixty-five percent of studies used secondary care data, with the most common outcomes being disease agnostic (39%) and cardiovascular disease (20%). Forty-eight studies aimed at risk prediction, with 50% comparing trajectory-based models to static baselines. Among 31 studies reporting area under the curve (AUC), temporal models showed moderate performance gains (relative/absolute AUC: median 5.7%/4.2%, range -2.6% to 58.9%/-2.3% to 33.0%). DISCUSSION: Trajectory studies are increasing in volume, but lacking in application to primary care datasets, a diverse set of diseases, external validation, and consideration of clinical applicability.

conclusionWhile the field's nascency hinders firm conclusions, there are promising results across a range of model types and objectives. Continued research from diverse perspectives will help determine whether this growing field can deliver meaningful clinical benefits.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsModels, StatisticalDeep LearningHumansRisk Assessmentdeep learningdiagnosis codeselectronic health recordsrisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID41293989
PMCPMC12844584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.