SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
Accuracy of deep learning in diagnosis of apnea syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to elucidate the accuracy of image-based deep learning (DL) methods in the real-time detection of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). Methods: A systematic search was conducted for studies published since database establishment up to September 25, 2025, across databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The included studies were assessed for risk of bias by using the QUADAS-2 tool. During this meta-analysis, a bivariate mixed-effects model was employed and only synthesized the results from the meta-analysis of the validation sets. Meanwhile, subgroup analyses were conducted based on the generation methods of the validation sets. Results: A total of 39 original studies were ultimately included, all of which constructed DL images derived from electrocardiogram (ECG) images. Our meta-analysis results suggested that for the comprehensive validation set, the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.96), 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96), 252 (95% CI:116-549), and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.42-1.00), respectively. For the independent validation set, the sensitivity, specificity, and SROC curve were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88-0.96), 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.97), and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.42-1.00), respectively. For the K-fold cross-validation set, the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), and SROC curve were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-0.97), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.89-0.96), 15.0 (95% CI: 8.1-27.6) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.65-1.00), respectively. Conclusion: The ECGs-based DL models demonstrate ideal accuracy for the detection of OSAS and appear to be a viable method for real-time detection. During our research process, we found that the modeling was actually based on extracting studies from segments of ECGs, but the extracted segments appeared to vary in duration. Since this aspect was not subjected to subgroup analysis in our study, we plan to conduct further exploration and validation in subsequent research. Systematic review registration: CRD42023465176, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/home.
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.