ReviewBMJ digital health & AI2026
From bedside to bench: towards clinical predictive AI research that achieves real-world impact.
Review in BMJ digital health & AI, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical predictive artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including equations or models developed using statistical, machine learning or AI methods, have proliferated, yet relatively few effectively translate into routine care. A major contributor to this bench-to-bedside gap is the lack of explicit translational planning at the outset. In this narrative review, we synthesise emerging principles for designing, developing and evaluating predictive AI tools with real-world impact in mind. We propose a pre-modelling discipline that defines the clinical question, intended users and position in the care pathway, highlights the importance of early and sustained stakeholder engagement and explicitly links programme theory to model outputs to inform decisions and change outcomes. It covers regulatory pathways and routes to self-sustainability, ethical and equity considerations and software implementation requirements that shape whether tools can be deployed and sustained. Finally, we summarise core methodological issues in model development, validation and monitoring that are particularly relevant to translation. Taken together, this bedside-to-bench approach reconceptualises clinical predictive AI tools as complex interventions, beginning with a clear expectation of their real-world deployment and benefit and planning backwards to inform model development. This shift in thinking is required to increase the chance that clinical predictive AI tools deliver real-world benefit rather than remaining confined to print.
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.