Search

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare has enhanced data-driven decision-making, but missing data remains a major barrier to reliable model performance. This narrative review synthesizes literature on missing data in clinical machine learning, focusing on modeling decisions, common pitfalls, and emerging reporting standards within AI-enabled healthcare systems.Missing data in healthcare arises from sources such as electronic health records (EHRs), wearable devices, and clinical trials, and may follow mechanisms including missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR), or missing not at random (MNAR). Addressing these gaps requires appropriate imputation strategies, from statistical methods like multiple imputation to advanced deep learning approaches such as generative adversarial networks (GANs), each carrying implications for bias and model generalizability.This review highlights key challenges, including underreporting of missingness, insufficient sensitivity analyses, and neglect of imputation uncertainty. It also examines evolving reporting standards that emphasize transparency in missing data handling. By synthesizing cross-study evidence, the review proposes a systems-level framework for integrating missing data management into AI governance, supporting more reliable, transparent, and equitable healthcare analytics.

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading global cause of death, emphasizing the need for improved risk stratification beyond traditional tools such as Framingham, ASCVD, QRISK, and SCORE, which show limitations in diverse modern populations. Machine learning methods applied to electronic health records can enhance prediction by capturing complex, high-dimensional, and nonlinear relationships. This systematic review (2017–2022) evaluated machine learning models for cardiovascular risk prediction using EHR data, focusing on discrimination (AUROC, AUPRC), calibration, external validation, and reporting quality including TRIPOD adherence. A PRISMA-compliant search identified peer-reviewed studies applying machine learning to EHR-based cardiovascular risk prediction. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST, and narrative synthesis was conducted due to heterogeneity. Twenty-nine studies were included. XGBoost, random forest, and neural networks were the most common models and generally outperformed logistic regression and traditional risk scores in discrimination. However, calibration was infrequently reported, and external validation was limited, often showing reduced performance. Machine learning models demonstrate improved predictive discrimination over conventional risk scores, but limited calibration assessment and weak external validation constrain clinical applicability. Stronger validation frameworks are needed for clinical translation.

Emergency department crowding is a persistent global healthcare challenge linked to longer wait times, increased patients leaving without being seen, worse clinical outcomes, and staff burnout. It also contributes to ambulance diversion and inefficient resource use, worsening hospital operational strain. This systematic review evaluates machine learning models for predicting ED crowding and optimizing patient flow, focusing on input features (e.g., arrival rates, acuity, bed availability) and reported operational outcomes such as waiting times and ambulance delays. A PRISMA-compliant review was conducted across PubMed, Embase, IEEE Xplore, and Scopus. Included studies applied machine learning to ED crowding or patient flow prediction and reported operational or crowding outcomes. Due to heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was used, and risk of bias was assessed using an adapted tool. Thirty-two studies met inclusion criteria, using classification, regression, time-series, and deep learning models. Common predictors included arrival patterns, occupancy, and bed availability. While predictive performance was generally high, few studies evaluated real-world operational impacts, and most remained retrospective. Although machine learning models demonstrate strong predictive accuracy for ED crowding, evidence of real-world operational benefits remains limited. A clear gap exists between prediction and implementation into clinical workflow and decision-making. Future research should focus on translating predictions into measurable improvements in ED performance.