ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Clinically-guided models or foundation models? predicting cervical spondylotic myelopathy from electronic health records.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Article
- Multimodal prediction of visual improvement in diabetic macular edema using real-world electronic health records and optical coherence tomography images.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- The portability paradox of foundation models for clinical decision support.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is the leading cause of spinal cord dysfunction in older adults, yet diagnosis is frequently delayed due to insidious symptom onset and limited clinical recognition. We developed and externally validated machine learning models using structured electronic health record (EHR) data to predict incident CSM diagnoses up to 30 months in advance. Using data from ~2 million patients in the Merative™ MarketScan® claims database and our institutional EHR, we evaluated a spectrum of modeling strategies, ranging from simple, clinically guided architectures to large-scale pretrained foundation models. These included count-based feed-forward networks, a clinically curated Mamba state-space model, two mid-scale transformer models (CoreBEHRT and CEHRBERT), and large foundation models (clmbr-t-base and clmbr-t-5k-CSM). While large foundation models achieved an overall stronger performance during internal validation in the larger, more heterogeneous dataset, the clinically oriented models generalized more effectively in external validation across a separate health system. These findings underscore the promise of foundation models in capturing rich EHR representations yet highlight persistent challenges in their generalizability. In contrast, domain-informed models, despite their simplicity, may offer greater robustness across care settings.
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.