Cited by 3,652Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareMachine Learning in Healthcare

Predicting the future - big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine

Open access
Obermeyer, Ziad, Emanuel, Ezekiel J.·2016·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

The algorithms of machine learning, which can sift through vast numbers of variables looking for combinations that reliably predict outcomes, will improve prognosis, displace much of the work of radiologists and anatomical pathologists, and improve diagnostic accuracy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmp1606181

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A structured taxonomy helps organise the expanding field of AI in clinical decision-making and clarifies how different systems support patient care across clinical contexts.

    “A structured taxonomy helps organise the expanding field of AI in clinical decision-making and clarifies how different systems support patient care across clinical contexts [30,31].”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Decision-Making: A Comprehensive Review of Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Applications, Validation Gaps, Bias, and Deployment Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [31]

    In “Predicting the Future — Big Data, Machine Learning, and Clinical Medicine” (page unavailable), the paper distinguishes expert systems from machine learning and discusses applications in prognosis, image interpretation, and diagnosis. That supports the claim that different systems can serve different clinical purposes, but the paper does not propose a structured taxonomy or say that one helps organise the field. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Diagnostic decision support focuses on identifying disease states from imaging, laboratory, pathology, and symptom-based data, often using deep learning to extract patterns from high-dimensional inputs.

    “Diagnostic decision support focuses on identifying disease states from imaging, laboratory, pathology, and symptom-based data, often using deep learning to extract patterns from high-dimensional inputs [31,32].”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Decision-Making: A Comprehensive Review of Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Applications, Validation Gaps, Bias, and Deployment Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [31]

    In “Predicting the Future — Big Data, Machine Learning, and Clinical Medicine” (page unavailable), the authors say machine learning can interpret radiology and pathology images, generate differential diagnoses, and find patterns in very large inputs. The paper does not specifically describe deep learning or establish laboratory and symptom-based data as inputs to diagnostic decision support; its mention of symptoms concerns prognosis. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Risk stratification supports the identification of high-risk patients and enables targeted interventions and resource allocation.

    “Risk stratification supports the identification of high-risk patients and enables targeted interventions and resource allocation [31].”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Decision-Making: A Comprehensive Review of Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Applications, Validation Gaps, Bias, and Deployment Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [31]

    The prognosis discussion in “Predicting the Future — Big Data, Machine Learning, and Clinical Medicine” (page unavailable) says machine learning can identify patient subgroups with very different mortality risks and that better estimates could inform advance care planning. It does not say that risk stratification enables targeted interventions or resource allocation, so those parts of the claim are unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the case study, the model identified elements of the patient's history and radiology findings to render its prediction, which are critical data points that a clinician would also use.

    “In our case study, the model identified elements of the patient’s history and radiology findings to render its prediction, which are critical data points that a clinician would also use.73”

    From Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records (2018) · cites this paper as [73]

    In “Predicting the Future — Big Data, Machine Learning, and Clinical Medicine” (page unavailable), the paper describes radiographic features and patients’ medical histories as potential inputs to prediction, and notes that clinicians interpret radiographs. It does not report a model that identified both kinds of information in a particular patient to make a prediction. The citing authors’ “our case study” is their own framing, not a case study in the cited paper. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several LLMs, including versions of the ChatGPT family, are employed by both EHR systems and insurance companies, creating a conflict of interest when similar datasets are used by entities with opposing objectives.

    “Currently, several LLMs, including versions of the ChatGPT family, are employed by both EHR systems and insurance companies38–40, creating a conflict of interest when similar datasets are used by entities with opposing objectives21,41.”

    From Preventing unrestricted and unmonitored AI experimentation in healthcare through transparency and accountability (2025) · cites this paper as [41]

    The paper’s main text discusses using EHR and insurance-claims data for machine learning, but does not address a conflict of interest between EHR systems and insurers with opposing objectives. Searches for that conflict and for insurer incentives found no supporting passage in our copy. The separate citations attached to the sentence’s LLM-use assertion are not being judged here. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Obermeyer, Z., & Emanuel, E. J.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2016-09-29
Volume
375
Issue
13
Pages
1216-1219
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2525984666
Cited by
3,652
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 494 · 2025: 596 · 2024: 492 · 2023: 378 · 2022: 371 · 2021: 389 · 2020: 348 · 2019: 286 · 2018: 195 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
140.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (DP5OD012161)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
machine learning, big data, clinical medicine, outcome prediction, diagnostic accuracy, radiology, pathological anatomy
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Diagnosis, Expert Systems, Prognosis, Clinical Medicine, Computational Biology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review