ArticlePloS one2026
Detection of rare medical events in electronic health records using machine learning: Current practices and suggestions - A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoutine healthcare data are increasingly stored in electronic health records (EHRs), presenting an exciting opportunity to leverage machine learning (ML) for detecting and predicting medical events. While medical experts are optimistic about expanding its applications, several caveats exist which are often overlooked. Many medical outcomes are categorical (e.g., a diagnosis is present or absent) with categories being considerably unequal in size, which might significantly impact the performance of ML algorithms. Detecting small subgroups in EHR data, so-called anomaly detection, is an emerging approach, yet organized documentation on current practices remains scarce. This scoping review examines medical anomaly detection based on routine healthcare data stored in EHRs and formulated alternative approaches in case suboptimal practices were noticed.
methodsPubMed and Web of Science were searched up to September 5, 2024. Peer-reviewed articles and conference papers on ML-based medical anomaly detection in EHR data were included. Fifty-two study characteristics were extracted and analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.
resultsA total of 117 studies met the inclusion criteria. The cross-study median proportion of the anomalous class was 0.079 (range 0.00045-0.23). Key details, e.g., data preprocessing actions, were often incomplete; 14.5% (n = 17) provided no information on this aspect. Only four studies reported the underlying cause of missingness before deciding how to handle it, and just three considered the clinical implications of false positives and false negatives when evaluating anomaly detection performance.
conclusionWe identified a need for greater attention in the current medical anomaly detection literature for reporting details on pre-processing, handling of missing data, and the use of performance metrics. With the increasing number of anomaly detection studies based on routine healthcare data stored in EHRs, more focus is needed on implementation and reporting practices to ensure relevance and reproducibility of future studies in this field.
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.