SynthesisBMC pediatrics2026
Effectiveness of machine learning for diagnosis and prognostic prediction of congenital heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to synthesize the effectiveness of machine learning (ML) in the diagnosis and prediction of congenital heart disease (CHD), providing evidence for the subsequent development of ML models for CHD.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched for studies on the application of ML in CHD up to April 8, 2024. The risk of bias was assessed using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). Subgroup analyses by task types (diagnosis and prediction) and different populations were performed.
resultsFifty-two papers covering 850,866 subjects were included. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves of ML in the diagnosis of CHD were 0.90 (95%CI: 0.86–0.93), 0.90 (95%CI: 0.85–0.93), 8.6 (95%CI: 5.8–12.6), 0.11 (95%CI: 0.08–0.16), and 0.95 (95%CI: 0.82–0.99), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the ML model for predicting whether the fetus would develop CHD based on the clinical characteristics of pregnant women were 0.749 (95% CI: 0.69–0.81) and 0.876 (95% CI: 0.83–0.92), respectively. A mortality risk prediction model based on clinical characteristics had a sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71–0.90) and a specificity of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77–0.88). The model for predicting coagulation status after CHD surgery had a sensitivity of 0.84 and a specificity of 0.70; the model for predicting malnutrition 1 year after CHD surgery had a sensitivity of 0.85 and a specificity of 0.88.
conclusionsML, especially image-based ML, appears to be an effective tool for the diagnosis and prediction of CHD. Nonetheless, this conclusion is drawn based on limited evidence. More and larger open datasets should be covered in future studies.
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.