Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42579710›Full record

ReviewPLOS digital health2026

Clinical predictive artificial intelligence evaluation: A narrative review of trial designs and practical considerations.

Maxime Fosset, Joris Pensier, Boris Jung, Arjumand Siddiqi, Muhammad Mamdani, Leo Anthony Celi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Maxime FossetMedical Intensive Care Unit, Lapeyronie Montpellier University Hospital, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4120-3356
Joris PensierCenter for Anesthesia Research Excellence, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Boris JungCenter for Anesthesia Research Excellence, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Arjumand SiddiqiDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Muhammad MamdaniData Science and Advanced Analytics, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Leo Anthony CeliDepartment of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) predictive models demonstrate potential for transforming clinical decision-making across medicine. However, conventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the gold standard for evaluating medical interventions, are ill-suited for clinical AI tools due to their static design, lengthy timelines, and inability to accommodate algorithms that evolve and adapt to changing clinical contexts. In this narrative review, we outline the limitations of traditional evaluation frameworks and propose a paradigm shift toward adaptive, iterative, and context-specific assessment methodologies. Evaluating clinical AI in practice requires three interdependent but epistemologically distinct activities: performance monitoring, which tracks the technical characteristics of the deployed model (calibration, discrimination, data drift, alert burden, fairness, workflow fidelity); clinical impact monitoring, which observationally and prospectively tracks whether the initial clinical benefit appears sustained over time; and scientific evidence generation, which produces causal estimates of deployment effects on patient outcomes through pragmatic, adaptive trial designs and causal inference techniques. We propose a predictive-AI-specific framework that links performance monitoring, clinical impact monitoring, evidence generation, causal estimands, and governance of model updates into one coherent decision pathway for clinicians and trialists. We present a governance-driven escalation protocol specifying when monitoring signals should trigger formal evidence generation, a decision pathway mapping signal types (performance or clinical impact) to trial design classifications, and a guide to causal inference methods for clinical AI trials. Drawing from adaptive platform and pragmatic trial designs, we recommend continuous monitoring approaches that prioritize patient-centered outcomes, health equity, and workflow integration over narrow performance metrics, and provide actionable steps to design a clinical AI trial. Successful implementation requires clinician engagement, transparency, and ongoing education regarding AI capabilities and limitations. Within this new evaluation paradigm, predictive AI can progress from a promising technology to reliable clinical tools that improve patient outcomes, support clinical decision-making, and uphold ethical standards in routine practice.

Identifiers

PMID42579710
PMCPMC13460596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.