ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026
Predictive performance precision analysis in medicine: identification of low-confidence predictions at patient and profile levels (MED3pa I).
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesArtificial Intelligence models are increasingly used in health care, yet global performance metrics can mask variations in reliability across individual patients or subgroups with shared attributes, called patient profiles. This study introduces predictive performance precision analysis in medicine (MED3pa), a method that identifies when models are less reliable, allowing clinicians to better assess model limitations. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe propose a framework that estimates predictive confidence using 3 combined approaches: individualized (IPC), aggregated (APC), and mixed predictive confidence (MPC). Individualized predictive confidence estimates confidence for each patient, APC assesses it across profiles, and MPC combines both. We evaluate our method on 4 datasets: 1 simulated, 2 public, and 1 private clinical dataset. Metrics by declaration rate curves show how performance changes when retaining only the most confident predictions, while interpretable decision trees reveal profiles with higher or lower model confidence.
resultsWe demonstrate our method in internal, temporal, and external validation settings, as well as through a clinical example. In internal validation, limiting predictions to the 93% most confident cases improved sensitivity by 14.3% and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve by 5.1%. In the clinical example, MED3pa identified a patient profile with high misclassification risk, demonstrating its potential for safer deployment. DISCUSSION: By identifying low-confidence predictions, our framework improves model reliability in clinical settings. It can be integrated into decision support systems to help clinicians make more informed decisions. Confidence thresholds help balance model performance with the proportion of patients for whom predictions are considered reliable.
conclusionBetter leveraging confidence in model predictions could improve reliability and trustworthiness, supporting safer and more effective use in health care.
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.