ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Individualized machine-learning-based clinical assessment recommendation system.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tuberculosis Preceding Lung Cancer: A Contemporary Meta-Analysis Revealing a Critical Gap in Post-2020 Evidence.Cancers · 2026Review
- Federated multimodal AI for precision-equitable diabetes care.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditional clinical assessments often lack individualization, relying on standardized procedures that may not accommodate the diverse needs of patients, especially in early stages where personalized diagnosis could offer significant benefits. We aim to provide a machine-learning framework that addresses the individualized feature addition problem and enhances diagnostic accuracy for clinical assessments.Individualized Clinical Assessment Recommendation System (iCARE) employs locally weighted logistic regression and Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) value analysis to tailor feature selection to individual patient characteristics. Evaluations were conducted on synthetic and real-world datasets, including early-stage diabetes risk prediction and heart failure clinical records from the UCI Machine Learning Repository. We compared the performance of iCARE with a Global approach using statistical analysis on accuracy and area under the ROC curve (AUC) to select the best additional features. The iCARE framework enhances predictive accuracy and AUC metrics when additional features exhibit distinct predictive capabilities, as evidenced by synthetic datasets 1-3 and the early diabetes dataset. Specifically, in synthetic dataset 1, iCARE achieved an accuracy of 0.999 and an AUC of 1.000, outperforming the Global approach with an accuracy of 0.689 and an AUC of 0.639. In the early diabetes and heart disease dataset, iCARE shows improvements of 6-12% in accuracy and AUC across different numbers of initial features over other feature selection methods. Conversely, in synthetic datasets 4-5 and the heart failure dataset, where features lack discernible predictive distinctions, iCARE shows no significant advantage over global approaches on accuracy and AUC metrics. iCARE provides personalized feature recommendations that enhance diagnostic accuracy in scenarios where individualized approaches are critical, improving the precision and effectiveness of medical diagnoses.
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.