Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41749266›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2026

Continuous Evaluation Frameworks for Retrospective Evaluation of Clinical Machine Learning Models.

Annamalai Natarajan, Yale Chang, Brian McLaverty, Lasith Adhikari, Erina Ghosh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Annamalai Natarajan *Hospital Patient Monitoring, Philips North America, 222, Jacobs Street, Cambridge, MA, 02141, USA. Annamalai.Natarajan@philips.com.
Yale Chang *Hospital Patient Monitoring, Philips North America, 222, Jacobs Street, Cambridge, MA, 02141, USA.
Brian McLaverty *US FCRM Modeling and Advanced Analytics, TD Bank Group, 200, State Street, Boston, MA, 02109, USA.
Lasith AdhikariHospital Patient Monitoring, Philips North America, 222, Jacobs Street, Cambridge, MA, 02141, USA.
Erina GhoshHospital Patient Monitoring, Philips North America, 222, Jacobs Street, Cambridge, MA, 02141, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The performance of clinical machine learning (ML) models that continuously predict the risk of a future event is typically evaluated using metrics at a single time point. While these metrics are widely accepted to evaluate the performance of ML models, they are not comprehensive enough to capture the performance and behavior of the ML models when executing continuously in real-world settings. Additionally, these single time point metrics assess model discriminability, which is different from clinical utility. In this paper, we propose three novel frameworks to continuously evaluate clinical ML models on retrospective datasets: (1) Zone-based (2) Predictive Activity Monitoring Characteristic curve-based and (3) Notification-based. We demonstrate the value of these three continuous evaluation frameworks using predictions from sepsis models evaluated on two publicly available datasets. The three proposed frameworks provide a more comprehensive evaluation and comparison of different sepsis prediction models and reveal additional aspects of model performance beyond standard metrics computed at a single time point. These frameworks provide users of clinical ML models a more realistic understanding of the model’s utility.

backgroundClinical machine learning (ML) models are increasingly used to predict patient risk continuously for future adverse events, such as sepsis. Traditionally, these models are evaluated using performance metrics computed at a single timepoint. While these metrics—such as Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) and Area Under the Precision Recall curve ( AUPRC)—are widely accepted, they fail to capture how a model behaves when operating continuously in real-world clinical environments. Moreover, single time point evaluations primarily assess discriminability, which may not directly reflect a model’s clinical utility.

methodsWe propose and implement three novel retrospective evaluation frameworks to continuously assess clinical ML models: zone-based, predictive activity monitoring characteristic curve (AMOC)-based and notification-based. These frameworks were applied to sepsis prediction models using two publicly available clinical datasets. Model outputs were continuously monitored, and results were compared against traditional single time point metrics to assess differences in performance.

resultsThe three continuous evaluation frameworks reveal multiple dimensions of model performance not captured by conventional metrics. Across both datasets, models with high AUROC demonstrate markedly different performance when continuously evaluated.

conclusionsThe proposed zone-based, predictive AMOC-based, and notification-based frameworks offer a more comprehensive and realistic assessment of continuously operating clinical ML models. By uncovering temporal and behavioral aspects of model performance, these methods enable more informed model selection, deployment, and monitoring in healthcare settings. Implementing continuous evaluation can enhance trust, transparency, and clinical applicability of ML systems beyond what single time point metrics provide.

trial registrationNot Applicable

Indexed as

Machine LearningHumansPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSepsisArtificial intelligenceClinical decision supportContinuous evaluationMachine learningPredictive analytics

Identifiers

PMID41749266
PMCPMC12947465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.