Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39982531›Full record

ReviewIntensive care medicine experimental2025

Comparison of artificial intelligence and logistic regression models for mortality prediction in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yang He, Ning Liu, Jie Yang, Yucai Hong, Hongying Ni, Zhongheng Zhang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Deep Learning in Scaphoid Nonunion Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yang HeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 3#, East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, China.
Ning LiuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 3#, East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, China.
Jie YangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 3#, East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, China.
Yucai HongDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 3#, East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, China.
Hongying NiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Affiliated Jinhua Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, No.365 Renmin East Rd, Jinhua, 321000, China. nihongying2@163.com.
Zhongheng ZhangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 3#, East Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, 310016, China. zh_zhang1984@zju.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2336-5323

Funding

China National Key Research and Development Program 2022YFC2504503China National Key Research and Development Program 2023YFC3603104collaborative scientific project co-established by the Science and Technology Department of the National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine and the Zhejiang Provincial Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine GZY-ZJ-KJ-24082National Natural Science Foundation of China 82272180the Huadong Medicine Joint Funds of the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China LHDMD24H150001the Project of Drug Clinical Evaluate Research of Chinese Pharmaceutical Association CPA-Z06-ZC-2021-004Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Wood Science and Technology 2024KY1099
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe application of artificial intelligence (AI) in predicting the mortality of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has garnered significant attention. However, there is still a lack of evidence-based support for its specific diagnostic performance. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of AI algorithms in predicting ARDS mortality.

methodWe conducted a comprehensive electronic search across Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO databases up to April 28, 2024. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included articles. A bivariate mixed-effects model was applied for the meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis, meta-regression analysis, and tests for heterogeneity were also performed.

resultsEight studies were included in the analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, and summarized receiver operating characteristic (SROC) of the AI-based model in the validation set were 0.89 (95% CI 0.79-0.95), 0.72 (95% CI 0.65-0.78), and 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.87), respectively. For the logistic regression (LR) model, the sensitivity, specificity, and SROC were 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.82), 0.68 (95% CI 0.60-0.76), and 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.84). The AI model demonstrated superior predictive accuracy compared to the LR model. Notably, the predictive model performed better in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (SAUC: 0.84 [95% CI 0.80-0.87] vs. 0.81 [95% CI 0.77-0.84]).

conclusionThe AI algorithms showed superior performance in predicting the mortality of ARDS patients and demonstrated strong potential for clinical application. Additionally, we found that for ARDS, a highly heterogeneous condition, the accuracy of the model is influenced by the severity of the disease.

Indexed as

Acute respiratory distress syndromeArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMortalityNeural networks

Identifiers

PMID39982531
PMCPMC11845658

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.