SynthesisFrontiers in public health2024
Performance of artificial intelligence in predicting the prognossis of severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2024. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: COVID-19-induced pneumonia has become a persistent health concern, with severe cases posing a significant threat to patient lives. However, the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in assisting physicians in predicting the prognosis of severe COVID-19 patients remains unclear. Methods: To obtain relevant studies, two researchers conducted a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases, including all studies published up to October 31, 2023, that utilized AI to predict mortality rates in severe COVID-19 patients. The PROBAST 2019 tool was employed to assess the potential bias in the included studies, and Stata 16 was used for meta-analysis, publication bias assessment, and sensitivity analysis. Results: A total of 19 studies, comprising 26 models, were included in the analysis. Among them, the models that incorporated both clinical and radiological data demonstrated the highest performance. These models achieved an overall sensitivity of 0.81 (0.64-0.91), specificity of 0.77 (0.71-0.82), and an overall area under the curve (AUC) of 0.88 (0.85-0.90). Subgroup analysis revealed notable findings. Studies conducted in developed countries exhibited significantly higher predictive specificity for both radiological and combined models ( Conclusion: The current evidence suggests that artificial intelligence prediction models show promising performance in predicting the prognosis of severe COVID-19 patients. However, due to variations in the suitability of different models for specific populations, it is not yet certain whether they can be fully applied in clinical practice. There is still room for improvement in their predictive capabilities, and future research and development efforts are needed. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ with the Unique Identifier CRD42023431537.
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.