ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
TRIAGE: Trustworthy Reporting and Assessment for Clinical Gain and Effectiveness of AI Models.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Women's Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke Risk Stratification Using a Precision and Personalized Framework Embedded with an Explainable Artificial Intelligence Paradigm: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Advances in Artificial Intelligence for Wrist Joint Injury Diagnosis.International journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
- Genetic determinants of metabolic-inflammatory dysregulation and machine learning prediction of COVID-19.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML), including deep learning, kernel-based classifiers, and ensemble methods, is increasingly used to support clinical diagnosis in medical imaging, biosignal interpretation, and electronic health record (EHR)-based decision support. Despite rapid progress, many diagnostic AI studies still rely on limited retrospective evaluation and single summary measures (e.g., accuracy or AUC), creating a gap between reported model performance and evidence required for safe clinical adoption. This review proposes TRIAGE, a clinically grounded evaluation framework designed to organize diagnostic AI testing as an evidence pipeline aligned with real clinical use cases (screening, triage, second reading, and confirmatory testing). We summarize core discrimination metrics derived from the confusion matrix (sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio, and F-scores) and highlight the importance of prevalence and spectrum effects for interpreting predictive value and clinical workload. We further review evaluation strategies for multi-class and multi-label diagnostic tasks using appropriate aggregation methods (micro, macro, and weighted averaging) and set-based measures such as Hamming loss, exact match ratio, and Jaccard/IoU. Because diagnostic deployment is threshold-dependent, we integrate representation curves (ROC, precision-recall, lift, and cumulative gain) with calibration assessment and clinical utility analysis, including calibration slope, Brier score, and decision-curve analysis. We also address robustness and fairness evaluation, leakage-resistant validation designs (patient-grouped splits, stratified and temporal validation, and external validation), computational constraints relevant to deployment (latency, throughput, and energy use), and statistically sound model comparison with multiplicity control. A structured TRIAGE checklist table summarizing the evaluation parameters described in this review is provided in the main text to support reproducible and clinically interpretable reporting.
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.