External validation and clinical implementation of clinical prediction models: a systematic review

Clicks: 6
ID: 337893
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #86 of 88 articles by views in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether external validation and clinical implementation of clinical prediction models reflect sequential or distinct stages of a translational pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional meta-epidemiologic study analyzed 1072 machine learning-based clinical prediction models published across clinical domains (2017-2019). We assessed downstream external validation and clinical implementation via citation screening through August 2025. Evaluated exposures included public code availability, TRIPOD adherence, multicenter design, and sample size. Secondary outcomes included investigator overlap. RESULTS: Among 1072 studies, 88.1% lacked translational follow-up. Only 9.9% underwent external validation, and 5.2% reached clinical implementation. Code availability (odds ratio [OR] 3.04; 95% CI, 1.91-4.84) and higher TRIPOD adherence (OR 2.68 per 10% increase; 95% CI, 2.04-3.52) were significantly associated with external validation, but not consistently with clinical implementation. Notably, 39% of implemented models lacked prior external validation. Independent groups predominantly conducted external validation (72.6%), whereas implementation frequently involved original development teams. DISCUSSION: Findings indicate a divergence in algorithmic translation. Characteristics emphasizing evaluability (code availability, reporting transparency) facilitate external validation but do not ensure clinical implementation. The frequent bypass of independent validation before implementation highlights a reliance on institutional and operational factors rather than generalizable methodology. CONCLUSION: External validation and clinical implementation appear to represent distinct translational processes rather than sequential stages influenced by a uniform set of factors. Current practices facilitate validation but inadequately address operational requirements for real-world deployment.
Reference Key
openalex_W7224737534 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Elijah J. Suh, Joseph S. Kang, James McDermott, Adam H. Nelson, Yoona Kim, Justin Liu, Krish Shah, Brenda Yu, Brian Zhang, Su Bin Lim, Jeff Choi
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jamia/ocag182
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocag182
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.