ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
A five-phase evaluation framework for diagnostic and predictive medical artificial intelligence.
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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
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
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.