ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
AI Cautionary Guide: Pitfalls and Strategies for the Use of Machine Learning in Medical Research.
Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) is increasingly utilized in medical research. However, underrecognized methodological pitfalls can result in misleading conclusions, which if acted upon can result in patient mismanagement and harm. As a result, we have provided a compilation of common pitfalls and practical safeguard considerations for ML-enabled medical research. Examples emphasize the importance of integrating clinical/biologic knowledge and statistical/epidemiologic principles, illustrated with key case examples. Topics include (1) Data drift, which can create artificial trends when coding systems or clinical practices change over time; (2) Feature construction that should be clinically grounded, as models may otherwise learn operational proxies rather than true biology; (3) Accidental data leakage, which can inflate apparent model performance and collapse on real-world deployment; (4) Competing risks and differential time-at-risk that can generate spurious associations in safety analyses if not modeled explicitly; (5) Confounding and collider bias, which can distort findings, particularly in EHR-based studies; (6) For rare outcomes, inappropriate evaluation measures can overstate performance and mislead explainability analyses; (7) Finally, pooled multi-trial analyses require careful handling of the intrinsic heterogeneity to avoid extracting study artifacts rather than generalizable signals. By outlining many of the common potential issues, with lessons learned, we aim to provide the medical and research community with practical insights to help foster trustworthy ML-enabled medical research.
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.