SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2025
Diagnostic accuracy of machine learning approaches to identify psoriatic arthritis: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intelligent Diagnosis and Treatment of Psoriasis Research: A Bibliometric Analysis from 2005-01-01 to 2025-12-31.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While machine learning (ML) approaches are commonly utilized in medical diagnostics, the accuracy of these methods in identifying psoriatic arthritis (PsA) remains uncertain. To evaluate the accuracy of ML approaches in the medical diagnosis of PsA. As a result, we thoroughly searched PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) between their inception and October 1, 2024. The overall test performance of ML approaches was evaluated using the following metrics: pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), the area under the curve (AUC), and Fagan plot analysis. Additionally, we assessed the publication bias using the asymmetry test of the Deeks funnel plot. Six studies were included. The combined diagnostic data showed sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI 0.60-0.81), specificity of 0.81 (95% CI 0.61-0.92), PLR of 4.00 (95% CI 3.06-5.23), NLR of 0.41 (95% CI 0.34-0.49), DOR of 11.06 (95% CI 6.42-19.06), and AUC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.78-0.84). The Fagan plot showed that the positive probability is 48% and the negative probability is 8%. Meta-regression identified country and sample size (all P < 0.05) as key sources of heterogeneity. The Deek funnel plot suggested that publication bias has no statistical significance (P = 0.99). The study suggests a promising accuracy of ML approaches in diagnosing PsA.
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.