Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41364792›Full record

Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2025

Adoption of Machine Learning in US Hospital Electronic Health Record Systems: Retrospective Observational Study.

Huang Huang, Wei Lyu, Md Mahmud Hasan, Shannon H Houser

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Huang HuangDepartment of Health Management, Economics and Policy, School of Public Health, Augusta University, 2500 Walton Way, Science Hall, E-1031, Augusta, GA, 30904, United States, 1 8595519185.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9654-1594
Wei LyuDepartment of Health Services Administration, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7441-9961
Md Mahmud HasanDepartment of Biostatistics, Data Science and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-7423-4841
Shannon H HouserDepartment of Health Services Administration, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4846-937X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: While machine learning (ML) technologies have shifted from development to real-world deployment over the past decade, US health care providers and hospital administrators have increasingly embraced ML, particularly through its integration with electronic health record (EHR) systems. This evolving landscape underscores the need for empirical evidence on ML adoption and its determinants; however, the relationship between hospital characteristics and ML integration within EHR systems remains insufficiently explored. Objective: This study aimed to examine the current state of ML adoption within EHR systems across US general acute care hospitals and to identify hospital characteristics associated with ML implementation. Methods: We used linked data between the 2022-2023 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and the 2023-2024 American Hospital Association Information Technology Supplement Survey. The sample includes 2562 general and acute care hospitals in the United States with a total of 4055 observations over 2 years. Applying inverse probability weighting to address nonresponse bias, we used descriptive statistics to assess ML adoption patterns and multivariate logistic regression models to identify hospital characteristics associated with ML adoption. Results: Overall, about 75% of the hospitals had adopted ML functions within their EHR systems in 2023-2024, and the majority tended to adopt both clinical and operational ML functions simultaneously. The most commonly adopted individual functions were predicting inpatient risks and outpatient follow-ups. ML model evaluation practices, while still limited overall, showed notable improvement. Multivariate regression estimates indicate that hospitals were more likely to adopt any ML if they were not-for-profit (4.4 percentage points, 95% CI 0.6-8.2; P=.02), large hospitals (15 percentage points, 95% CI 9.4-21; P<.001), operated in metropolitan areas (4.3 percentage points, 95% CI 0.8-7.8; P=.02), contracted with leading EHR vendors (20.6 percentage points, 95% CI 17.1-24; P<.001), and affiliated with a health system (26.8 percentage points, 95% CI 22.4-31.3; P<.001). Similar patterns were observed for predicting the adoption of both clinical and operative ML. We also identified specific hospital characteristics associated with the adoption of individual ML functions. Conclusions: ML adoption in hospitals is influenced by organizational resources and strategic priorities, raising concerns about potential digital inequities. Limited quality control and evaluation practices highlight the need for stronger regulatory oversight and targeted support for underresourced hospitals. As the integration of ML into EHR systems expands, disparities in both adoption and oversight become increasingly critical. To ensure the equitable, safe, and effective implementation of ML technologies in health care, well-designed policies must address these gaps and promote inclusive innovation across all hospital settings.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsHospitalsMachine LearningHumansRetrospective StudiesUnited Statesartificial intelligenceelectronic health recordhealth information technology adoptionmachine learningorganizational behavior

Identifiers

PMID41364792
PMCPMC12688049

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.