ArticleJAMIA open2026
Enhancing cause of death prediction: development and validation of machine learning models using multimodal data across multiple health-care sites.
Article in JAMIA open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To develop and validate machine learning (ML) models that predict probable cause of death (CoD) using structured electronic health record (EHR) data, unstructured clinical notes, and publicly available sources. Materials and Methods: This multi-institutional retrospective study was conducted across Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) and Massachusetts General Brigham (MGB), including deceased patients with encounters between October 1, 2015, and January 1, 2021, and confirmed death records. The cohort included 13 708 patients from VUMC and 34 839 from MGB.The primary outcome was underlying CoD categorized into the top 15 National Center for Health Statistics rankable causes, with others grouped as "Other." Performance was assessed using weighted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and F-measure. Results: The XGBoost model using structured EHR data alone achieved weighted AUCs of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.84-0.88) at VUMC and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.79-0.80) at MGB. Adding unstructured notes improved performance, with weighted AUCs of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.88-0.93) at VUMC and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.92) at MGB. Adding publicly available data did not further improve performance. Cross-institutional validation revealed significant performance degradation. Discussion: Models integrating structured and unstructured EHR data show strong within-institution performance but limited generalizability across healthcare systems, highlighting challenges related to institutional data heterogeneity. Conclusions: Machine learning models combining structured and unstructured EHR data accurately predict CoD within institutions but perform poorly across sites. Health-care institutions may benefit from adopting robust processes for locally tailored models, and future research should focus on enhancing model generalizability while addressing unique institutional data environments.
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.