SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025
Early Prediction of Mortality Risk in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Early Prediction of Mortality Risk in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Construction and validation of a prognostic model for in-hospital multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in ICU patients with respiratory failure based on ultrasound and laboratory parameters.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Dynamic Parameters within the First 72 H of ICU Admission Predict Extubation Failure and 28-Day Mortality in Severe Pneumonia-Induced ARDS: A Retrospective Cohort Study.The clinical respiratory journal · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Intensive Care: An Overview of Systematic Reviews with Clinical Maturity and Readiness Mapping.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning in acute respiratory distress syndrome management: recent advances.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Early prediction of ARDS caused by non-pulmonary sepsis based on machine learning algorithms of inflammatory indicators and blood gas parameters.Frontiers in medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition associated with high mortality rates. Despite advancements in critical care, reliable early prediction methods for ARDS-related mortality remain elusive. Accurate risk assessment is crucial for timely intervention and improved patient outcomes. Machine learning (ML) techniques have emerged as promising tools for mortality prediction in patients with ARDS, leveraging complex clinical datasets to identify key prognostic factors. However, the efficacy of ML-based models remains uncertain. This systematic review aims to assess the value of ML models in the early prediction of ARDS mortality risk and to provide evidence supporting the development of simplified, clinically applicable ML-based scoring tools for prognosis.
objectiveThis study systematically reviewed available literature on ML-based ARDS mortality prediction models, primarily aiming to evaluate the predictive performance of these models and compare their efficacy with conventional scoring systems. It also sought to identify limitations and provide insights for improving future ML-based prediction tools.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Embase, covering publications from inception to April 27, 2024. Studies developing or validating ML-based ARDS mortality predicting models were considered for inclusion. The methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity in model performance based on dataset characteristics and validation approaches.
resultsIn total, 21 studies involving a total of 31,291 patients with ARDS were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that ML models achieved relatively high predictive performance. In the training datasets, the pooled concordance index (C-index) was 0.84 (95% CI 0.81-0.86), while for in-hospital mortality prediction, the pooled C-index was 0.83 (95% CI 0.81-0.86). In the external validation datasets, the pooled C-index was 0.81 (95% CI 0.78-0.84), and the corresponding value for in-hospital mortality prediction was 0.80 (95% CI 0.77-0.84). ML models outperformed traditional scoring tools, which demonstrated lower predictive performance. The pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) for standard scoring systems was 0.7 (95% CI 0.67-0.72). Specifically, 2 widely used clinical scoring systems, the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS-II), demonstrated ROC-AUCs of 0.64 (95% CI 0.62-0.67) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.66-0.74), respectively.
conclusionsML-based models exhibited superior predictive accuracy over conventional scoring tools, suggesting their potential use in early ARDS mortality risk assessment. However, further research is needed to refine these models, improve their interpretability, and enhance their clinical applicability. Future efforts should focus on developing simplified, efficient, and user-friendly ML-based prediction tools that integrate seamlessly into clinical workflows. Such advancements may facilitate the early identification of high-risk patients, enabling timely interventions and personalized, risk-based prevention strategies to improve ARDS outcomes.
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.