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