ArticleJAMIA open2026
From prediction to practice: machine learning models and real-world interventions for magnetic resonance imaging appointment no-shows in a hospital setting.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop a machine learning (ML) model to predict magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appointment no-shows and test the effectiveness of a targeted phone call intervention in reducing the no-show rate. Materials and Methods: Outpatient MRI appointments from a university hospital (2015-2021) were used to train and compare Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and XGBoost models. The best-performing model underwent a 13-month prospective evaluation, followed by a 9-month intervention study where high-risk patients were randomized to a phone call reminder or a control group. Results: Our dataset included 38 141 appointments (16.6% no-show) in total. On a held-out validation dataset, XGBoost performed best (AUROC 0.65; AUPRC 0.29). In a prospective evaluation round (5882 appointments), performance decreased (AUROC 0.61; AUPRC 0.24), due in part to observed data drift in appointment types and reasons. The intervention study (274 patients called, 158 answered, 116 not reached; 460 control appointments) showed no overall change in no-show rate (no-show: 21.9% intervention vs 22.0% control; Discussion: Models identified high-risk patients, but translating predictions into attendance improvements proved challenging. Effectiveness was limited by data drift and intervention reach. Results suggest value in dual-prediction strategies (including potential intervention responsiveness) and continuous model monitoring. Conclusion: ML can identify likely no-shows, but reducing missed appointments requires robust, up-to-date models and interventions that reliably reach patients; more nuanced, targeted engagement may yield greater impact than phone calls alone.
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.