SynthesisJournal of medical systems2026
Recent Advances in AI for Automated ICD Coding: A Systematic Literature Review.
Synthesis in Journal of medical systems, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes enable correct billing, insurance reimbursement, and healthcare analytics. However, manual coding is time-consuming, expensive, and error-prone, creating bottlenecks in clinical workflow and limiting scalability. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising solution for automated ICD code assignment from unstructured clinical text. This systematic review explores the current state of automated ICD coding research, examining models applied to diverse clinical documents including discharge summaries, electronic health records, nursing notes, and pathology reports. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched six databases for studies published between 2019 and 2024, selecting 54 relevant studies from 4,280 initial citations. Our analysis reveals the use of diverse datasets, preprocessing techniques, and feature extraction methods, alongside a clear evolution from traditional machine learning to deep learning approaches, with substantial architectural diversity across convolutional, recurrent, transformer, and hybrid models. Performance varies considerably across dataset configurations, with models achieving higher accuracy on frequent code subsets compared to full label spaces. However, critical gaps persist: overreliance on single-language, single-institution datasets limits generalizability; difficulties in predicting rare codes remain unresolved; lack of model interpretability undermines clinical trust; and inconsistent evaluation protocols hinder meaningful comparison. To address these challenges, we propose a 5P evidence-grounded research agenda: Population Diversity, Performance Robustness, Prediction of Rare Codes, Provenance Transparency, and Practical Integration. These findings underscore AI's potential to transform ICD coding while highlighting the need for standardized benchmarks, rigorous external validation, multilingual datasets, and explainable architectures to enable equitable and effective deployment in real-world healthcare systems.
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.