ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Validating predictive models on EHRs data : lessons learnt from the NCDR-IMPACT-score applied on a French cardiac catheterization cohort.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
Abstract
objectiveWe present a natural language processing pipeline to extract and re-compute a pre-existing score, the IMPACT-score, in a children's hospital belonging to the APHP hospitals. MATERIALS AND
methodsPredictive variables and adverse events occurrences were extracted from the EHR of each patient. Data extraction involved rule-based and machine learning approaches depending on the format of the data. The machine learning text-classifiers were trained on active learning annotated dataset. Once the registry was automatically populated, we computed the IMPACT-score model in our patients and we performed a logistic regression analysis to find the specific odd ratio fitting our cohort and obtain the IMPACT-score-Necker.
resultsWe extracted clinical data from 2,980 patients. When applied to our hospital cohort, the IMPACT-score-Necker achieved an AUC of 0.719 whereas the original IMPACT-score achieved an AUC of 0.642. As a reminder, the IMPACT-score achieved an AUC of 0.752 in the NCDR-IMPACT validation cohort. DISCUSSION: Local calibration of the IMPACT-score on our cohort enhanced predictive accuracy, improving the AUC from 0.642 to 0.719, and addressing differences between our population and the original NCDR-IMPACT cohort. This reinforces the need for model adaptation to local data, as patient demographic and clinical variations can significantly impact performance. Local EHR data warehouses could be leveraged for recalibration and continuous monitoring, ensuring that AI tools remain accurate, ethical, and practical for clinicians in their clinical practice.
conclusionOur results underscore the need for real-world model validation, and EHRs offer a reliable source for training and validating AI models.
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.