ReviewAnnals of thoracic medicine
Artificial intelligence diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility in allergic rhinitis management: Systematic review.
Review in Annals of thoracic medicine. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common outpatient conditions, diagnosed through operator-dependent and resource-intensive methodologies. This systematic review assessed the use and efficacy of diagnostic strategies using artificial intelligence (AI). This review aims to explore how AI can enhance diagnostic accuracy, personalize treatment, and support clinical decisions in AR care. This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for studies published between 2002 and 2025. Out of 1109 identified studies, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight studies involving 311,354 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, mainly from China and South Korea. Supervised machine learning was predominant, followed by Random Forest and eXtreme Gradient Boosting algorithms. Overall, AI models demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve up to 0.93, sensitivity 91.5%, specificity 99.95%), which demonstrated a promising utility in diagnosis, risk prediction, and medication adherence. A key finding from this review is that AI models can serve as complementary tools beside gold standard methods. However, clinical adaptation will require external validation, interoperability with electronic health records, a clinicianfriendly design, and adherence to Good Machine Learning Practice. The lack of standardized comparator methods across studies remains a key limitation.
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.