Cited by 46Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in HealthcareEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Sustainable deployment of clinical prediction tools—a 360° approach to model maintenance

Open access
Davis, Sharon E, Embí, Peter J, Matheny, Michael E·2024·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Background: As the enthusiasm for integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical care grows, so has our understanding of the challenges associated with deploying impactful and sustainable clinical AI models. Complex dataset shifts resulting from evolving clinical environments strain the longevity of AI models as predictive accuracy and associated utility deteriorate over time. Objective: Responsible practice thus necessitates the lifecycle of AI models be extended to include ongoing monitoring and maintenance strategies within health system algorithmovigilance programs. We describe a framework encompassing a 360° continuum of preventive, preemptive, responsive, and reactive approaches to address model monitoring and maintenance from critically different angles. Discussion: We describe the complementary advantages and limitations of these four approaches and highlight the importance of such a coordinated strategy to help ensure the promise of clinical AI is not short-lived.

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 · 10.1093/jamia/ocae036

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • These frameworks primarily focus on evidence generation at the point of evaluation and provide limited guidance on how performance degradation should be detected and managed during routine clinical operation, particularly when outcome labels are delayed, incomplete, or influenced by the model's own use.

    “However, these frameworks primarily focus on evidence generation at the point of evaluation and provide limited guidance on how performance degradation should be detected and managed during routine clinical operation, particularly when outcome labels are delayed, incomplete, or influenced by the model’s own use [25–27].”

    From Validation is not enough: Longitudinal evidence of post-deployment fragility in clinical AI systems (2026) · cites this paper as [26]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 2 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    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
Davis, S. E., Embí, P. J., & Matheny, M. E.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
  • Veterans Health Administration (US)
Corresponding author
Davis, Sharon E
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2024-02-29
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
1195-1198
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W4392282341
Cited by
46
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 4
FWCI
4.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD103537)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
clinical prediction tool, model maintenance, algorithmic monitoring, distribution shift, model drift, algorithmic oversight, algorithmic accountability, model life cycle, clinical implementation of AI
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Emotions

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