SynthesisInternational journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases2025
Machine learning for personalized risk assessment of HIV, syphilis, gonorrhoea and chlamydia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Use of AI in Identification of Sexually Transmitted Infections and Anogenital Dermatoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Integrating mathematical modelling and artificial intelligence to combat emerging viral syndemics: A systematic review.New microbes and new infections · 2026Review
- Mechanisms, management and prevention of anorectal sexually transmitted infections.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Review
- Prediction of female reproductive tract infections risk among college-going young adult women in Delhi using explainable artificial intelligence.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- External validation of a web- and artificial intelligence-based HIV/STI risk assessment tool: performance evaluation using data from Sydney sexual health centre.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning (ML) shows promise for sexually transmitted infection (STI) risk prediction, but systematic evidence of its effectiveness remains fragmented.
methodsWe systematically searched six electronic databases, three preprint archives and conference proceedings (January 2010-April 2024). Studies reporting quantitative performance metrics for supervised ML-based STI risk prediction models were included. We used a bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC). The risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. We conducted sequential analyses of studies with complete and reconstructed confusion matrices. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression explored potential sources of heterogeneity.
resultsAmong 3877 records screened, 25 studies comprising 45 unique models met inclusion criteria. For HIV, analysis of studies with complete confusion matrices (7 studies, 9 contingency tables) demonstrated summary AUC of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88-0.93), pooled sensitivity 0.84 (0.76-0.90) and specificity 0.84 (0.70-0.93). Substantial heterogeneity persisted across subgroups (I² > 98%). For other STIs, individual studies reported AUCs ranging from 0.75-0.87 for syphilis (n = 5), 0.73-1.00 for gonorrhoea (n = 6) and 0.67-1.00 for chlamydia (n = 6). DISCUSSION: While ML models show promising performance, particularly for HIV, significant heterogeneity complicates interpretation. Future research should prioritize external validation, standardized guidelines and multi-centred robust implementation studies to evaluate clinical impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.