Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42697954›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026

A five-phase evaluation framework for diagnostic and predictive medical artificial intelligence.

Zichen Ye, Yue Chen, Xuefeng Huang, Manman Chen, Wanzhou Wang, He Zhu, Keyu Han, Jiahui Wang, Qu Lu, Yuankai Zhao and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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

13 authors.

Zichen YeSchool of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. ye18700579760@163.com.
Yue ChenDivision of cancer epidemiology, German cancer research center. Im Neuenheimer Feld 581, Heidelberg, Germany.
Xuefeng HuangSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Manman ChenSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Wanzhou WangInstitute of Medical Technology, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China.
He ZhuSchool of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Keyu HanSchool of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Jiahui WangSchool of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Qu LuSchool of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yuankai ZhaoSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yimin QuSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. quyimin@sph.pumc.edu.cn.
Guanghan GaoDepartment of Orthopedics, Beijing Luhe Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. lxxx-gaoguanghan@163.com.
Yu JiangSchool of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. jiangyu@pumc.edu.cn.

Funding

Beijing Natural Science Foundation of China 7264296Cervical Cancer "Medical Artificial Intelligence" WH10022021004National Natural Science Foundation of China 82404400
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced rapidly across diagnostic, prognostic, and clinical decision-support applications, yet the pathway from laboratory performance to demonstrable clinical benefit remains fragmented and inconsistently defined. Existing evaluations rely heavily on retrospective testing and algorithm-centric metrics, while current guidelines emphasize reporting standards rather than specifying validation across stages of model maturity. This study proposes a five-phase evaluation framework for medical AI, supported by a dynamic evaluation architecture reflecting the nonlinear, iterative nature of AI systems. The framework integrates technical validation, operational robustness validation, controlled interaction validation, clinical evidence validation, and real-world integration validation, while incorporating phase-gating criteria and local and systemic fall-back triggers. These mechanisms enable re-entry into earlier phases based on drift, version updates, or safety signals, and accommodate parallel activities such as implementation research informing clinical trials. By systematically mapping multicenter external validation, shadow-mode testing, human-AI comparison and cooperation studies, randomized controlled trials, real-world evaluations, and adaptive designs into a coherent lifecycle pathway, the framework addresses persistent gaps between laboratory performance and clinical benefit. It provides researchers, clinical institutions, and regulators with an operational, scalable approach aligned with evolving regulatory expectations, supporting trustworthy, ethically aligned, and lifecycle-based evidence generation for medical AI systems.

Identifiers

PMID42697954
PMCPMC13545083

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.