ArticleScientific reports2026
Conformal selective prediction with cost aware deferral for safe clinical triage under distribution shift.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We propose a selective prediction framework for clinical triage that combines calibrated probabilistic modeling, conformal prediction, and cost-aware deferral to prioritize patient safety. The system produces set-valued predictions with finite-sample coverage control and defers low-confidence cases to clinicians when doing so reduces an explicit expected clinical cost. We construct prediction sets using split conformal prediction, a group-conditional Mondrian variant for gender-stratified coverage, and an importance-weighted variant to improve robustness under distribution shift, and we select a single deferral threshold by minimizing expected cost on a held-out calibration set. On temporally separated in-distribution and out-of-distribution test splits for early sepsis prediction, selective deferral yields a favorable risk-coverage trade-off, reducing error on retained cases by 49.6% on the in-distribution (ID) test split and 46.7% on the out-of-distribution (OOD) test split, both at 80% coverage, while achieving low expected cost on both splits with only a moderate increase under shift. Calibration remains strong with low expected calibration error on both test sets, and rule-out performance is conservative, attaining near-perfect negative predictive value at a 95% sensitivity target. Coverage stays close to the nominal 90% target in-distribution and degrades only slightly out-of-distribution, with the weighted method most robust, and the Mondrian method reduces the gender coverage gap to 1.4 percentage points. These results indicate that conformal uncertainty quantification combined with cost-aware deferral can provide transparent and safer clinical decision support that degrades gracefully under temporal distribution shift.
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.