Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42909110›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026

Prediction without intervention: why fifteen years of no-show models have not closed the loop on patient adherence.

David Flagel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in 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

1 author.

David FlagelDoctor of Technology Program, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fifty-two published studies since 2010 have modeled which patients will miss which appointments. Ambulatory no-show rates have moved only modestly. This Perspective asks why fifteen years of prediction research has produced so little change in care, and argues that the answer is architectural, not algorithmic. In most health systems, the no-show model, the patient outreach platform, and the clinical risk tool are separate tools run by separate teams. Prediction is now routine, and prediction-guided interventions have reduced no-shows in trials. None of the systems in the studies and reviews examined here sense the full behavioral signal of their own outreach, fuse behavioral prediction into clinical risk, or learn in routine practice from the interventions they deliver. I describe three failures behind this gap: outreach platforms that discard the behavioral data they generate, behavioral and clinical risk models that never exchange a feature, and interventions that are never measured. I then propose three design principles for a closed-loop alternative, and a research agenda to test them. Maternal health, where a missed prenatal visit can mean an unmonitored pregnancy complication, is the motivating case; the principles apply wherever outcomes depend on sustained engagement with care.

Indexed as

appointment no-showclinical decision supportdigital healthlearning health systemsmachine learningmaternal healthpatient adherencepredictive analytics

Identifiers

PMID42909110
PMCPMC13683762

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.