ReviewHealth science reports2024
The effect of machine learning algorithms in the prediction, and diagnosis of meningitis: A systematic review.
Review in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting Hospital Length of Stay in Orthopedic Trauma Patients Using Fracture-Specific Machine Learning Models: A Multicenter Retrospective Prediction-Modeling Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Attitudes and Usage of ChatGPT Among Medical and Paramedical Students in Iran: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Transforming lupus self-care education with mobile health: A systematic review.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Review
- Usability Evaluation of the Karafs Application: A Qualitative Study Using the Think-Aloud Method.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Machine Learning Methods Developed for Prediction and Diagnosis of Pneumonia: A Systematic Review.Health science reports · 2025Review
- A Machine Learning Approach for Identifying People With Neuroinfectious Diseases in Electronic Health Records: Algorithm Development and Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Improving meningitis surveillance and diagnosis with machine learning: Insights from São Paulo.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence tool development: what clinicians need to know?BMC medicine · 2025Review
- Design and Development of a Web-Based Registry for Outpatient Rehabilitation: A Delphi Multi-Disciplinary, Expert Consensus Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence-based Automated International Classification of Diseases Coding: A Systematic Review.Journal of medical signals and sensors · 2025Review
- Challenges and opportunities of using artificial intelligence in rehabilitation from the perspective of students and professors in the Northeast Iran: A cross-sectional study.Journal of education and health promotion · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: This systematic review aimed to evaluating the effectiveness of machine learning (ML) algorithms for the prediction and diagnosis of meningitis. Methods: On November 12, 2022, a systematic review was carried out using a keyword search in the reliable scientific databases PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science. The recommendations of Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were adhered to. Studies conducted in English that employed ML to predict and identify meningitis were deemed to match the inclusion criteria. The eligibility requirements were used to independently review the titles and abstracts. The whole text was then obtained and independently reviewed in accordance with the eligibility requirements. Results: After all the research matched the inclusion criteria, a total of 16 studies were added to the systematic review. Studies on the application of ML algorithms in the three categories of disease diagnosis ability (8.16) and disease prediction ability (8.16) (including cases related to identifying patients (50%), risk of death in patients (25%), the consequences of the disease in childhood (12.5%), and its etiology [12.5%]) were placed. Among the ML algorithms used in this study, logistic regression (LR) (4.16, 25%) and multiple logistic regression (MLR) (4.16, 25%) were the most used. All the included studies indicated improvements in the processes of diagnosis, prediction, and disease outbreak with the help of ML algorithms. Conclusion: The results of the study showed that in all included studies, ML algorithms were an effective approach to facilitate diagnosis, predict consequences for risk classification, and improve resource utilization by predicting the volume of patients or services as well as discovering risk factors. The role of ML algorithms in improving disease diagnosis was more significant than disease prediction and prevalence. Meanwhile, the use of combined methods can optimize differential diagnoses and facilitate the decision-making process for healthcare providers.
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.