SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Machine learning prediction models for intravenous immunoglobulin resistance in Kawasaki disease: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is the standard initial treatment for Kawasaki disease (KD). However, approximately 20% of patients are resistant, who have a significantly increased risk of coronary artery lesions. Early prediction of IVIG resistance is crucial for improving outcomes, but traditional clinical scoring systems exhibit limited generalizability and limited predictive performance.
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the accuracy of machine learning (ML) models in predicting IVIG-resistant KD through meta-analysis, and provide evidence-based support for clinical application.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase was performed from inception to September 15, 2025. The novel PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) was used to assess the risk of bias of the ML models. A random-effects model was used to synthesize the area under the curve (AUC), and a bivariate mixed-effects model was applied for sensitivity and specificity analysis. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on model type and definition criteria.
resultsA total of 22 studies (32,678 patients) were included. The pooled AUC was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.75–0.84) for training sets and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76–0.84) for internal validation sets. The pooled AUC for external validation sets was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68–0.79). Subgroup analysis revealed that complex tree-based ensemble models demonstrated significantly superior discriminative ability (AUC = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.80–0.90). After excluding one outlier study, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for internal validation sets were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.68–0.87) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.68–0.94), respectively. Key predictors frequently included in ML models were C-reactive protein, platelet count, neutrophil percentage and hemoglobin.
conclusionsOur research demonstrates that ML models exhibit favorable and promising performance in predicting IVIG-resistant KD, outperforming traditional scoring systems, which provides support for the future development of ML in this field. Notwithstanding, cautious interpretation is required given the moderate external validation efficacy and high risk of bias in most included studies.
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.