SynthesisComputational intelligence and neuroscience2022
Machine Learning for Diagnosis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: How Machine Learning Can Help Distinguish between Infections and Flares.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Exploring the Intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Clinical Healthcare: A Multidisciplinary Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Retracted: Machine Learning for Diagnosis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-10-04Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions · · See also: https://pubpeer.com/publications/4C3D5CC4D8743A5FD9DE1C93EFE193
- Retracted
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Application of machine learning (ML) for identification of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) has been recently drawing increasing attention, while there is still lack of evidence-based support. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis are conducted to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy and application prospect. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science libraries are searched, in combination with manual searching and literature retrospection, for studies regarding machine learning for identifying SLE and neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE). Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADA-2) is applied to assess the quality of included studies. Diagnostic accuracy of the SLE model and NPSLE model is assessed using the bivariate fixed-effect model, and the data are pooled. Summary receiver operator characteristic curve (SROC) is plotted, and area under the curve (AUC) is calculated. Results: Eighteen (18) studies are included, in which ten (10) focused on SLE and eight (8) on NPSLE. The AUC of SLE identification is 0.95, the sensitivity is 0.90, the specificity is 0.89, the PLR is 8.4, the NLR is 0.12, and the DOR is 73. AUC of NPSLE identification is 0.89, the sensitivity is 0.83, the specificity is 0.83, the PLR is 5.0, the NLR is 0.20, and the DOR is 25. Conclusion: Machine learning presented remarkable performance in identification of SLE and NPSLE. Based on the convenience for inclusion factor collection and non-invasiveness of detection, machine learning is expected to be widely applied in clinical practice to assist medical decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.