ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2026
Use of machine learning for chronic disease case identification in primary care settings: A scoping review of methods, validation, and clinical relevance.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Based Predictive Modeling for the Development of Chronic Rhinosinusitis Using Longitudinal Health Records.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Clinical decision making algorithms, evidence-based applications, future insights, and beyond.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo examine how artificial intelligence and machine learning methods are used to develop chronic disease case definitions using primary care electronic medical records and to evaluate their methodological transparency and clinical applicability.MethodsA scoping review was conducted according to the Arksey and O'Malley framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines across Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, and Web of Science (2000-2024). Eligible studies applied machine learning to define or validate chronic disease cases using primary care electronic medical record data. Twenty-three studies were analyzed for data sources, machine learning approaches, validation strategies, and knowledge translation activities.ResultsMost studies were from Canada or the United Kingdom and used supervised machine learning, primarily random forests and neural networks. Validation metrics commonly included sensitivity and specificity, although external validation was rare. Interpretable, rules-based definitions could be derived from approximately 50% of the studies, while none described formal knowledge translation.ConclusionsMachine learning methods can improve electronic medical records-based disease identification and surveillance. However, greater transparency, validation, and clinician-machine learning collaboration are essential to translate these approaches into trustworthy, decision-support tools for primary care.INPLASY registration number: 2025120002.
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.