ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
External Validation of Epic's Risk of Opioid Abuse and Overdose Model Among Primary Care Patients in Three Health Systems.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMost people with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive evidence-based treatment. To increase treatment rates, primary care clinics may choose to implement risk prediction tools available in the electronic health record (EHR) to identify patients with a high risk of OUD or overdose.
objectiveTo externally validate Epic's cognitive computing model to predict the Risk of Opioid Abuse or Overdose (referred to as the Opioid Risk Score; ORS) in three large integrated health systems.
designProspective cohort study secondary to an ongoing clinical trial.
participantsPatients (N = 704,764) aged 18-75 who had a primary care encounter during the study period (April 2021-December 2022) and did not have an OUD diagnosis at index. MAIN MEASURES: Data were extracted from the EHR. The index date was defined as the first date within the study period where the patient met eligibility criteria and had an ORS calculated by the EHR. The binary outcome variable was whether the patient was diagnosed with OUD or experienced an opioid overdose within 12 months of the index date. KEY
resultsMost patients were classified as low risk on ORS (99.6%). Few patients experienced an OUD diagnosis or overdose in the 12-month follow-up period (0.3%). The model correctly classified 185 of 2362 patients who experienced an event (sensitivity 0.0783, 95% CI 0.0675, 0.0892) and 699,926 of 702,406 patients who did not experience an event (specificity 0.9965, 95% CI 0.9963, 0.9966). Few patients with high ORS experienced the event (PPV 0.0694, 95% CI 0.0598, 0.0791). The model had excellent discrimination (c-statistic = 0.815) but was poorly calibrated, underestimating risk for patients who experienced the outcomes.
conclusionsEpic's ORS demonstrated excellent discrimination but very low sensitivity across three large integrated health systems. Health systems should exercise caution before implementing vendor risk prediction models without validating their use in their patient populations. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41703383What 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.