SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2025
Diagnostic accuracy and quality of artificial intelligence models in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review.
Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) affects approximately 9%-12% of the global population, presenting substantial diagnostic challenges due to symptom subjectivity and lack of definitive biomarkers.
aimTo systematically examine the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) models applied to various biomarkers in IBS diagnosis.
methodsA comprehensive search of six databases identified 18053 articles published up to May 31, 2024. Following screening and eligibility criteria, six observational studies involving 1366 participants from the United Kingdom, China, and Japan were included. Risk of bias and reporting quality were assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2, prediction model risk of bias assessment tool-AI, and transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis-AI tools. Key metrics included sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC).
resultsThe included studies applied AI models such as random forests, support vector machines, and neural networks to biomarkers like fecal microbiome composition, gas chromatography data, neuroimaging features, and protease activity. Diagnostic accuracy ranged from 54% to 98% (AUC: 0.61-0.99). Models using fecal microbiome data achieved the highest performance, with one study reporting 98% sensitivity and specificity (AUC = 0.99). While most studies demonstrated high methodological quality, significant variability in datasets, biomarkers, and validation methods limited meta-analysis feasibility and generalizability.
conclusionAI models show potential to improve IBS diagnostic accuracy by integrating complex biomarkers which will aid the development of algorithms to direct treatment strategies. However, methodological inconsistencies and limited population diversity underscore the need for standardized protocols and external validation to ensure clinical applicability.
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.