ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Development and validation of a generalisable machine learning algorithm for identifying interstitial lung disease cohorts: a retrospective cohort study.
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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.