ArticlePloS one2026
Representativeness of a German AI-enabled data network for secondary epidemiological analysis based on electronic health records.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe ongoing digitalization of medicine, increased computing power and low-cost storage capacities enable the use of AI-based algorithms for epidemiological big data analysis of electronic patient records. The aim of this study was to evaluate the representativeness of a data network with infrastructure for federated machine learning (ML) across numerous German hospitals. This was done by comparing basic data from the ML data network with publicly available data from the Federal Statistical Office (DESTATIS) to test the scientific validity for future epidemiological analyses.
methodsIn a retrospective epidemiological secondary analysis, 8,106,105 case files from the ML network were examined and compared to DESTATIS data regarding age, gender, length of hospital stay, ICD-10 diagnoses, and OPS codes. In addition, ICD-10 codes for substance abuse and the regional distribution were compared to examine socioeconomic confounders.
resultsThe variables age, gender and length of stay, as well as the most common general ICD-10 and OPS codes and ENT-specific OPS codes, showed a high level of concordance based on clinical relevance. For the ENT-specific ICD-10 codes, 2 out of 11 of the most frequent codes showed a maximum deviation of 3.71%. The analysis of socioeconomic factors and regional distribution showed no evidence for deviations. DISCUSSION: The high level of agreement for the variables examined indicates the representativeness of the ML dataset in comparison to the DESTATIS data. This finding paves the way for future epidemiological studies based on big data, which were previously unavailable in research.
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.