ReviewNPJ digital medicine2026
Comprehensive analysis of predictive models for disease manifestations and case fatality in systemic lupus erythematosus.
Review in NPJ digital medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review evaluated the performance and risk of bias in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) disease manifestations and case fatality prediction models, based on a search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to October 17, 2025. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). A random-effects meta-analysis pooled the Area Under the Curve (AUC) values with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs), with sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The study included 35 studies comprising 89 prediction models, primarily from China (92.3%). Designs were mainly cross-sectional (46.2%) or retrospective cohort (42.3%). Common predictor categories included immunologic/autoantibody profile s (n = 148) and biochemical parameters (n = 126). During development, pulmonary (AUC = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.78-0.87), perinatal (0.92, 0.83-1.03), and case fatality models (0.91, 0.89-0.95) performed highly, while cardiovascular models scored lower (0.78, 0.74-0.81). Upon validation, pulmonary models remained superior (0.86, 0.81-0.91); perinatal (0.82, 0.77-0.87) and cardiovascular models (0.80, 0.76-0.83) remained robust, whereas case fatality models declined markedly. Machine learning models showed greater potential for pulmonary outcomes (0.83, 0.78-0.89). Predictor number improved renal model performance but reduced accuracy for case fatality. All 89 models were rated high risk of bias and mostly low applicability per PROBAST.
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.