ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Performance of predictive AI-based clinical decision support systems across clinical domains: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- User-Centered Design Approach to Dynamic Clinical Decision Support in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Cerebral Aneurysm Management: Integrating Imaging, Hemodynamics, and Clinical Decision Support.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
- Hybrid Digital Twin Framework for Personalized Diabetes Management Using Mathematical Modelling and Machine Learning.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Deep learning and generative AI for medical imaging and clinical decision support systems: a structured critical review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-driven risk prediction of polypharmacy in older adults: current advances, clinical applications, and future perspectives.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Shifting bottleneck: AI capability and healthcare adaptation.BMJ digital health & AI · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite advances in deep learning and transformer architectures, prior reviews have focused narrowly on traditional clinical decision support systems (CDSS) or single medical domains, leaving significant gaps in understanding contemporary AI-driven predictive tools. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the predictive performance of artificial intelligence-based CDSS (AI-CDSS) across multiple medical specialties. Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched through December 2024 for studies evaluating predictive AI-CDSS using real-world clinical data. Two reviewers independently screened 3,296 records (κ = 0.833), with study quality assessed via QUADAS-2 and performance measures pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Fifty studies spanning 17 medical specialties were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated moderate discriminatory ability (pooled AUC: 0.652, 95% CI: 0.562-0.743), high specificity (0.819, 95% CI: 0.793-0.844), moderate accuracy (0.765, 95% CI: 0.734-0.796), and variable sensitivity (0.660, 95% CI: 0.535-0.785), with substantial heterogeneity across all measures (I² ≥ 98.9%). Only 24% of studies involved prospective deployment, and 64% reported exclusively technical metrics without clinical workflow data. Predictive AI-CDSS demonstrate moderate-to-good diagnostic performance with strong specificity; however, the predominance of retrospective study designs and limited implementation reporting reveal critical gaps between technical validation and real-world clinical utility. To address these shortcomings, we propose the ROADMAP framework, structured around seven domains: Representative development, Outcomes-focused evaluation, Assessment for deployment, Data harmonization, Monitoring for bias, Allocation via economic evaluations, and Priorities for standardized reporting and prospective validation. This framework provides a practical roadmap for bridging the gap between algorithmic performance and meaningful clinical integration.
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.