Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42814997›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Agentic AI for Clinical Outcomes Research, Population Health Management Analyses With Large Administrative Databases, and Generating Epidemiological Estimates of Diseases: Feasibility and Validation Study.

Daniel Frisch, Michael Fronstin, Carla Zema

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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

3 authors.

Daniel FrischBruce & Robbi Toll Heart and Vascular Institute, Division of Cardiology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7645-6405
Michael FronstinVireo Strategies, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6233-562X
Carla ZemaZema Consulting, Athens, AL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4014-2340

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is tremendous enthusiasm for the use of AI in health care because of the ability to analyze existing data for preventative, diagnostic, and treatment support. Agentic AI can feasibly provide access to large real-world datasets for the generation of real-world evidence for health care and clinical applications to health care providers, researchers, and administrators without access to large analytic programming resources.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to understand the feasibility of using agentic AI for clinical outcome research and population health management. Specifically, this study used an agentic AI evidence-generation platform to obtain epidemiological estimates of diverse medical conditions, with the results evaluated against existing AI frameworks.

methodsPrevalence estimates of 6 conditions (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, acute myeloid leukemia, bladder cancer, Huntington disease, elevated lipoprotein (a), and Parkinson disease) were estimated using an agentic AI evidence-generation platform applied to an administrative claims database with representation from every US state. Gender-specific rates were calculated within the following age categories: 0 to 17, 18 to 24, 25 to 34, 35 to 44, 45 to 54, 55 to 64, and 65 to 74 years and 75 years and older. Period prevalence was estimated from January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2025, and annual prevalence rates for each year were estimated from 2020 to 2024. Continuous enrollment for 12 months was required during the study period for inclusion. Source code generated by the platform as part of the analysis was reviewed by an independent programmer for validation of methods and programming, and analyses were replicated using traditional programming methods. Results obtained throughout the process were evaluated against several existing AI application frameworks.

resultsRegarding accuracy, epidemiological estimates obtained using the agentic AI platform were consistent with published estimates for all 6 conditions, as well as with estimates obtained from traditional programming methods. Regarding rigor, the agentic AI platform conducted the analysis with rigor by confirming acceptable methods in published literature for the type of data source used. Code lists used for the analysis were confirmed against existing algorithms when available. Appropriate statistical methods were used to compare differences in prevalence rates by age and gender. Regarding trust (explainability, transparency, replicability, traceability, and validation), the agentic AI platform generated all source code used for the analyses, which was reviewed and validated for accuracy and appropriateness. The analysis included a "human in the loop" to validate the research question, data extraction method, statistical analysis plan, and output plan prior to proceeding with each step.

conclusionsWith specific design considerations to ensure responsible use, agentic AI can be invaluable to increasing the accessibility of large datasets for applied clinical outcome research and population health management analyses.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDatabases, FactualOutcome Assessment, Health CarePopulation Health ManagementAdolescentAdultAgedChildChild, PreschoolFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansHuntington DiseaseInfantInfant, NewbornLeukemia, Myeloid, Acuteadministrative dataagentic AIagentic artificial intelligenceAIartificial intelligenceclinical outcome researchpopulation healthprevalencereal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID42814997
PMCPMC13669707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.