From prediction to practice: machine learning models and real-world interventions for magnetic resonance imaging appointment no-shows in a hospital setting.

IF 4.7 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
JAMIA Open Pub Date : 2026-08-04 eCollection Date: 2026-08-01 DOI:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooag151
Mark McMahon, Jonas Kluckert, Olivio F Donati, Nicolas Andres Perez Gonzalez, Laura Kinkead, Christian Blüthgen, Andreas Hötker, Thomas Frauenfelder, Michael Krauthammer
{"title":"From prediction to practice: machine learning models and real-world interventions for magnetic resonance imaging appointment no-shows in a hospital setting.","authors":"Mark McMahon, Jonas Kluckert, Olivio F Donati, Nicolas Andres Perez Gonzalez, Laura Kinkead, Christian Blüthgen, Andreas Hötker, Thomas Frauenfelder, Michael Krauthammer","doi":"10.1093/jamiaopen/ooag151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop a machine learning (ML) model to predict magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appointment no-shows and test the effectiveness of a targeted phone call intervention in reducing the no-show rate.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Outpatient MRI appointments from a university hospital (2015-2021) were used to train and compare Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and XGBoost models. The best-performing model underwent a 13-month prospective evaluation, followed by a 9-month intervention study where high-risk patients were randomized to a phone call reminder or a control group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our dataset included 38 141 appointments (16.6% no-show) in total. On a held-out validation dataset, XGBoost performed best (AUROC 0.65; AUPRC 0.29). In a prospective evaluation round (5882 appointments), performance decreased (AUROC 0.61; AUPRC 0.24), due in part to observed data drift in appointment types and reasons. The intervention study (274 patients called, 158 answered, 116 not reached; 460 control appointments) showed no overall change in no-show rate (no-show: 21.9% intervention vs 22.0% control; <i>P</i> = .48). Within the intervention group, answering the call was associated with lower no-show rates (18.4% of those reached vs 26.7% not reached).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Models identified high-risk patients, but translating predictions into attendance improvements proved challenging. Effectiveness was limited by data drift and intervention reach. Results suggest value in dual-prediction strategies (including potential intervention responsiveness) and continuous model monitoring.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ML can identify likely no-shows, but reducing missed appointments requires robust, up-to-date models and interventions that reliably reach patients; more nuanced, targeted engagement may yield greater impact than phone calls alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":36278,"journal":{"name":"JAMIA Open","volume":"9 4","pages":"ooag151"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13437018/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMIA Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooag151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To develop a machine learning (ML) model to predict magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appointment no-shows and test the effectiveness of a targeted phone call intervention in reducing the no-show rate.

Materials and methods: Outpatient MRI appointments from a university hospital (2015-2021) were used to train and compare Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and XGBoost models. The best-performing model underwent a 13-month prospective evaluation, followed by a 9-month intervention study where high-risk patients were randomized to a phone call reminder or a control group.

Results: Our dataset included 38 141 appointments (16.6% no-show) in total. On a held-out validation dataset, XGBoost performed best (AUROC 0.65; AUPRC 0.29). In a prospective evaluation round (5882 appointments), performance decreased (AUROC 0.61; AUPRC 0.24), due in part to observed data drift in appointment types and reasons. The intervention study (274 patients called, 158 answered, 116 not reached; 460 control appointments) showed no overall change in no-show rate (no-show: 21.9% intervention vs 22.0% control; P = .48). Within the intervention group, answering the call was associated with lower no-show rates (18.4% of those reached vs 26.7% not reached).

Discussion: Models identified high-risk patients, but translating predictions into attendance improvements proved challenging. Effectiveness was limited by data drift and intervention reach. Results suggest value in dual-prediction strategies (including potential intervention responsiveness) and continuous model monitoring.

Conclusion: ML can identify likely no-shows, but reducing missed appointments requires robust, up-to-date models and interventions that reliably reach patients; more nuanced, targeted engagement may yield greater impact than phone calls alone.

从预测到实践:机器学习模型和现实世界干预磁共振成像预约在医院设置。
目的:开发一种机器学习(ML)模型来预测磁共振成像(MRI)预约失约,并测试有针对性的电话干预在降低失约率方面的有效性。材料与方法:使用某大学医院2015-2021年门诊MRI预约,训练并比较Logistic回归、随机森林和XGBoost模型。表现最好的模型进行了为期13个月的前瞻性评估,随后进行了为期9个月的干预研究,其中高风险患者随机分为电话提醒组和对照组。结果:我们的数据集共包括38141次预约(16.6%未赴约)。在持久化验证数据集上,XGBoost表现最好(AUROC为0.65;AUPRC为0.29)。在前瞻性评估轮(5882个预约)中,性能下降(AUROC为0.61;AUPRC为0.24),部分原因是观察到的预约类型和原因的数据漂移。干预研究(274名患者被呼叫,158名应答,116名未到达;460名对照预约)显示,缺勤率总体上没有变化(缺勤率:干预组21.9% vs对照组22.0%;P = 0.48)。在干预组中,接听电话与较低的缺勤率相关(18.4%的人到达,26.7%的人没有到达)。讨论:模型识别高危患者,但将预测转化为出勤率的提高证明是具有挑战性的。有效性受到数据漂移和干预范围的限制。结果表明,双重预测策略(包括潜在的干预反应性)和连续模型监测具有价值。结论:机器学习可以识别可能的缺席,但减少错过的预约需要强大的,最新的模型和干预措施,可靠地到达患者;更细致、更有针对性的参与可能比单独打电话产生更大的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JAMIA Open
JAMIA Open Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
102
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书