Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41768274›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026

Development and validation of a generalisable machine learning algorithm for identifying interstitial lung disease cohorts: a retrospective cohort study.

Erica Farrand, Augustine Chung, Jisha Joshua, Huawei Dong, Hunter Mills, Albert Lee, Martin Ieong, Lakshmi Radhakrishnan, Oksana Gologorskaya, Atul Butte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Erica FarrandDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Augustine ChungDepartment of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jisha JoshuaDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Huawei DongDepartment of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Hunter MillsBakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Albert LeeAcademic Research Services, Information Technology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Martin IeongDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Lakshmi RadhakrishnanAcademic Research Services, Information Technology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Oksana GologorskayaAcademic Research Services, Information Technology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Atul ButteBakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Large electronic databases are powerful tools for studying rare diseases, however accurate Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) classification remains challenging. Rule-based approaches rely heavily on diagnostic codes-unreliable markers of ILD. We aimed to develop and externally validate an ILD classification algorithm that robustly identifies prevalent cases using routinely captured electronic health record (EHR) data. Methods: In this retrospective model development and validation study, we used EHR data from the UC Health Data Warehouse, a multi-institutional dataset from six academic centres in California, USA (2012-2024). Data from individuals ≥18 years with ≥ five encounters were included. We developed the Universal ILD Classifier, a machine learning model developed on standardised EHR data elements from UC San Francisco (January 1, 1981-January 6, 2025). The algorithm was converted to an EHR-agnostic common data model, to enable external validation across three independent sites (UC Irvine, Los Angeles, and San Diego; January 1, 2012-April 30, 2025). Features included diagnostic and procedure codes, laboratory results, medications, demographics, and utilisation metrics. The main outcome was algorithm performance assessed by positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, F1-score, and receiver operative characteristic-area under the curve (ROC-AUC). Performance was compared with two widely used rule-based classification methods. Findings: The Universal ILD Classifier, developed on data from 203,976 patients and validated on data at three independent sites (N = 250 per site), demonstrated robust generalisability, achieving average PPV = 0.67 (0.58-0.72), sensitivity = 0.97 (0.94-0.99), F1-score = 0.79 (0.72-0.84), and ROC-AUC = 0.96 (0.94-0.97). It consistently outperformed both rule-based methods, which had PPVs = 0.55 (0.50-0.59) and 0.67 (0.61-0.73), sensitivities = 0.98 (0.96-0.99) and 0.59 (0.53-0.64), F1-scores = 0.71 (0.66-0.74) and 0.63 (0.57-0.68), and ROC-AUCs = 0.80 (0.78-0.82) and 0.73 (0.70-0.76) respectively. Interpretation: Accurate patient identification is essential for epidemiological studies and ILD clinical trials. The Universal ILD Classifier leverages commonly available EHR data and outperforms rule-based approaches, supporting more reliable large-scale ILD research and offering a foundation for further refinement with additional features. Limitations inherent to retrospective EHR analyses, including misclassification, residual confounding, and limited generalisability, may have influenced effect estimates and should be considered when interpreting these findings. Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI).

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceData scienceInterstitial lung diseaseMachine learningReal-world-data

Identifiers

PMID41768274
PMCPMC12945527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.