ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
Mitigation of outcome conflation in predicting patient outcomes using electronic health records.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-guided nutritional therapy in the ICU.Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2026Review
- Clinical Application Progress of Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Cancer: From Diagnosis to Immunotherapy.Oncology research · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence for the Diagnosis and Management of Cancers: Potentials and Challenges.MedComm · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI) models utilizing electronic health record data for disease prediction can enhance risk stratification but may lack specificity, which is crucial for reducing the economic and psychological burdens associated with false positives. This study aims to evaluate the impact of confounders on the specificity of single-outcome prediction models and assess the effectiveness of a multi-class architecture in mitigating outcome conflation. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe evaluated a state-of-the-art model predicting pancreatic cancer from disease code sequences in an independent cohort of 2.3 million patients and compared this single-outcome model with a multi-class model designed to predict multiple cancer types simultaneously. Additionally, we conducted a clinical simulation experiment to investigate the impact of confounders on the specificity of single-outcome prediction models.
resultsWhile we were able to independently validate the pancreatic cancer prediction model, we found that its prediction scores were also correlated with ovarian cancer, suggesting conflation of outcomes due to underlying confounders. Building on this observation, we demonstrate that the specificity of single-outcome prediction models is impaired by confounders using a clinical simulation experiment. Introducing a multi-class architecture improves specificity in predicting cancer types compared to the single-outcome model while preserving performance, mitigating the conflation of outcomes in both the real-world and simulated contexts. DISCUSSION: Our results highlight the risk of outcome conflation in single-outcome AI prediction models and demonstrate the effectiveness of a multi-class approach in mitigating this issue.
conclusionThe number of predicted outcomes needs to be carefully considered when employing AI disease risk prediction models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.