Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39875868›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Accuracy of artificial intelligence algorithms in predicting acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yaxin Xiong, Yuan Gao, Yucheng Qi, Yingfei Zhi, Jia Xu, Kuo Wang, Qiuyue Yang, Changsong Wang, Mingyan Zhao, Xianglin Meng

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine.Thoracic research and practice · 2025
    Article
  5. Multimodal Deep Learning for ARDS Detection.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Yaxin XiongDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Heilongjiang, China.
Yuan GaoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Heilongjiang, China.
Yucheng QiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Heilongjiang, China.
Yingfei ZhiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Heilongjiang, China.
Jia XuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Heilongjiang, China.
Kuo WangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Heilongjiang, China.
Qiuyue YangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Heilongjiang, China.
Changsong WangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Heilongjiang, China.
Mingyan ZhaoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Heilongjiang, China. mingyan197@gmail.com.
Xianglin MengDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Heilongjiang, China. mengzi98@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a serious threat to human life. Hence, early and accurate diagnosis and treatment are crucial for patient survival. This meta-analysis evaluates the accuracy of artificial intelligence in the early diagnosis of ARDS and provides guidance for future research and applications.

methodsA search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM), and VIP databases was systematically conducted, from their establishment to November 2023, to obtain eligible studies for the analysis and evaluation of the predictive effect of AI on ARDS. The retrieved literature was screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, the quality of the included studies was assessed using QUADAS-2, and the included studies were statistically analyzed.

resultsAmong the 2, 996 studies, 33 were included in this meta-analysis, which showed that the pooled sensitivity of AI in predicting ARDS was 0.81 (0.76-0.85), the pooled specificity was 0.88 (0.84-0.91), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.91 (0.88-0.93). The analyzed studies included 28 models, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.79 (0.76-0.82), a pooled specificity of 0.85 (0.83-0.88), and an AUC of 0.89 (0.86-0.91). In the subgroup analysis, the pooled AUC of the AI models ANN, CNN, LR, RF, SVM, and XGB were 0.86 (0.83-0.89), 0.91 (0.88-0.93), 0.86 (0.83-0.89), and 0.89 (0.86-0.91), 0.90 (0.87-0.92), 0.93 (0.90-0.95), respectively. In an additional subgroup analysis, we evaluated the predictive performance of the AI models trained using different predictors. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023491546).

conclusionAI has good sensitivity and specificity for predicting ARDS, indicating a high clinical application value. Algorithmic models such as CNN, SVM, and XGB have improved prediction performance. The subgroup analysis revealed that the model trained using images combined with other predictors had the best predictive performance.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceRespiratory Distress SyndromeHumansSensitivity and SpecificityAcute respiratory distress symptomsArtificial intelligenceMeta-analysisPrediction

Identifiers

PMID39875868
PMCPMC11776246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.