ArticleJAMIA open2026
Advancing clinical utility of artificial intelligence: lessons from developing a model to predict cochlear implant eligibility.
Article in JAMIA open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To address the gap between artificial intelligence (AI) model development and clinical implementation by developing a machine-learning model to predict cochlear implant (CI) eligibility based on routine hearing tests, while illustrating 3 practical lessons: reformulation for clinical utility, selection of problem-specific metrics, and handling input data variability. Materials and Methods: Data were extracted from adult patients who underwent behavioral audiometric and subsequent CI candidacy testing (Arizona Biomedical and Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant tests) at Mayo Clinic between 2011 and 2023. Regression models were initially developed to predict AzBio and CNC scores using features from routine audiograms. Models were then reformulated into binary classification tasks using clinical thresholds (AzBio ≤60%; CNC <50%) and reported sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). Input data variability was assessed by analyzing test-retest differences in isophonemes scores. Results: Binary classification models achieved sensitivity of 90.4% with PPV 80.2% at CNC 50/AzBio 60, outperforming referral heuristics (60/60 and 75/40). Applying the models to 50 700 historical audiograms identified 525 patients at PPV 90% (sensitivity 58%), 396 at PPV 94% (sensitivity 44%), and 1582 at PPV 71% (sensitivity 94%). Variability analyses indicated that attainable precision is bounded by noise in key predictors. Conclusion: This study demonstrates how AI models can be translated into clinically actionable tools by reformulating regression outputs, selecting metrics aligned with clinical priorities, and addressing data variability. These strategies provide a scalable framework for implementing AI in health care and improving decision-making in diverse clinical contexts.
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.