ReviewHealth science reports2025
Evaluation of Machine Learning Methods Developed for Prediction and Diagnosis of Pneumonia: A Systematic Review.
Review in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving Tree-Based Lung Disease Classification from Chest X-Ray Images Using Deep Feature Representations.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: With the increasing prevalence of pneumonia, machine learning (ML) models have been increasingly utilized to diagnose, predict, and treat pneumonia due to their ability to manage complex datasets. This systematic review evaluates the performance and quality of ML models developed for pneumonia prediction, diagnosis, and treatment, following the statistical reporting guidelines of Assel et al. (2018). Methods: On 15 January 2024, a systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar using the PRISMA checklist. Articles developing or validating ML models for pneumonia were included. Performance metrics, including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC), were extracted with confidence intervals where available. Results: Of 11,545 screened articles, 42 studies evaluating 125 ML models were included. For pneumonia diagnosis, DenseNet achieved the highest accuracy of 94% (95% CI: 92%-96%), while Random Forest and XGBoost were the most effective for prediction, with AUCs of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99), respectively. Neural networks ( Conclusion: ML algorithms significantly improve pneumonia diagnosis and prediction, optimizing clinical decision-making. However, data set biases and generalizability challenges highlight the need for standardized reporting and robust validation.
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.