SynthesisBMC psychiatry2024
Deep learning approach to predict autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2024. 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 It has been retracted, and should not be counted.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 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence support for diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders during childhood: an umbrella review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- The role of artificial intelligence interventions to improve eye contact for children with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review.BMC psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Autism spectrum disorder identification using machine learning models on MRI data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Applying artificial intelligence in neurodevelopmental disorders management and research.European journal of medical research · 2026Review
- RETRACTED: Hybrid deep learning and feature selection approach for autism detection from rs-fMRI data.PloS one · 2026Article
- The role of machine learning in autism spectrum disorder assessment and management.Pediatric research · 2025Review
- GM-VGG-Net: A Gray Matter-Based Deep Learning Network for Autism Classification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Multimodal Morphometric Similarity Network Analysis of Autism Spectrum Disorder.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Time series prediction for monitoring cardiovascular health in autistic patients.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Cross-modal privacy-preserving synthesis and mixture-of-experts ensemble for robust ASD prediction.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based feature selection for detection of autism spectrum disorder.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Deep learning in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a narrative review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Review
- The role of AI-driven art therapy in supporting autism, mental health, and emotional well-being: An umbrella review.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
- Retracted
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of the deep learning (DL) approach has been suggested or applied to identify childhood autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The capacity to predict ASD, however, differs across investigations. Our study's objective was to conduct a meta-analysis to determine the DL for ASD in children's classification accuracy.
methodsEligibility criteria were designed according to the purpose of the meta-analysis; PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science Database were searched for articles published up to April 16, 2023, on the accuracy of DL methods for ASD classification. Using the Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) to assess the quality of the included studies. Sensitivity, specificity, areas under the curve (AUC), summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC), and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were compiled by using the bivariate random-effects models.
resultsA total of 11 predictive trials based on DL models were included, involving 9495 ASD patients from 6 different databases. According to bivariate random-effects models' results, the overall sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of the DL technique for ASD were, 0.95 (95% CI = 0.88-0.98), 0.93 (95% CI = 0.85-0.97), and 0.98 (95%CI: 0.97-0.99), respectively. Subgroup analysis results found that different datasets did not cause heterogeneity (meta-regression P = 0.55). The Kaggle dataset's sensitivity and specificity were 0.94 (95%CI: 0.82-1.00) and 0.91 (95%CI: 0.76-1.00), and with 0.97 (95%CI: 0.92-1.00) and 0.97 (95%CI: 0.92-1.00) for ABIDE dataset.
conclusionsDL techniques has satisfactory sensitivity, specificity, and AUC in ASD classification. However, the major heterogeneity of the included studies limited the effectiveness of this meta-analysis. Further trials need to be performed to demonstrate the clinical practicability of DL diagnosis.
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.