Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40339784›Full record

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.

Phyu M Latt, Nyi N Soe, Christopher K Fairley, Eric P F Chow, Cheryl C Johnson, Purvi Shah, Ismail Maatouk, Lei Zhang, Jason J Ong

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Phyu M LattArtificial Intelligence and Modelling in Epidemiology Program, Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; School of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: phyu.latt@monash.edu.
Nyi N SoeArtificial Intelligence and Modelling in Epidemiology Program, Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; School of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Christopher K FairleySchool of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Eric P F ChowSchool of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Cheryl C JohnsonGlobal HIV, Hepatitis and STIs Programmes, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Purvi ShahGlobal HIV, Hepatitis and STIs Programmes, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; Regional Support Team, Asia Pacific, UNAIDS, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ismail MaatoukGlobal HIV, Hepatitis and STIs Programmes, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Lei ZhangArtificial Intelligence and Modelling in Epidemiology Program, Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; School of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Clinical Medical Research Centre, Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Jason J OngSchool of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

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

Chlamydia InfectionsGonorrheaHIV InfectionsMachine LearningSexually Transmitted DiseasesSyphilisHumansRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificityHIVMachine learningMeta-analysisRisk assessmentSexually transmitted infectionsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40339784
PMCPMC12181084

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.