ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2026
Scalable discovery and validation of order-specific electronic health record event trajectories for interpretable adverse-outcome risk estimation.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveClinicians must estimate patients' risk of adverse outcomes, yet many electronic health record tools represent health history as an unordered "bag of codes," discarding temporal order. Machine learning tools that leverage sequence order may offer better predictions but often lack interpretability for clinical audit. We introduce an interpretable, order-aware framework that mines frequent event pairs (A → B) and tests whether their ordering provides prognostic information for estimating risk of adverse outcomes (C) beyond the same codes without order.
methodsUsing the NIH All of Us Controlled Tier, 432,617 eligible participants were split 70/30 into discovery and confirmation. We combined 340,687 A → B pairs with nine outcomes (C) to create 3,066,183 candidate trajectories and tested 85,535 trajectories in this pilot using observation-aware indexing, a 90-day latency and 5-year A → B gap, inverse-probability weighting, weighted competing-risk cumulative incidence, four prespecified comparators (primary: B with no prior A), and Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) in a discovery/confirmation design.
resultsAfter discovery FDR, 663 unique trajectories advanced and 171 validated for ≥ 1 horizon in confirmation. At 5 years, the median risk ratio (RR) was 2.02 versus the primary comparator and 3.89 versus a calendar-time baseline (median absolute risk difference 2.49 percentage-points). Reverse-order checks were feasible for ∼ 87% of hypotheses (median A → B → C vs B → A → C RR 1.18) at 5 years.
conclusionOrdered trajectories can provide interpretable, audit-ready signal beyond unordered features and can augment white-box risk estimation for adverse clinical outcomes.
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.