ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
A methodological framework for conducting diagnostic meta-analyses using large literature corpora.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. 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.
- A methodological framework for conducting diagnostic meta-analyses using large literature corpora.BMC medical research methodology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe exponential growth of biomedical literature challenges the feasibility, reproducibility, and bias control of diagnostic meta-analyses based on manual screening.
methodsWe propose a scalable framework integrating automated topic modeling (Latent Dirichlet Allocation, LDA) for thematic pre-screening with hierarchical multivariate meta-analysis to jointly synthesize sensitivity and specificity. Abstracts from eight databases were processed using linguistic normalization, lemmatization, and probabilistic topic modeling to prioritize diagnostically relevant studies. Selected studies were synthesized using bivariate hierarchical random-effects models on the logit scale, allowing incorporation of methodological and clinical moderators.
resultsApplied to dengue diagnostic algorithms in Latin America, the framework reduced 5, 766 retrieved records to 10 studies contributing 94 algorithms. Machine-learning-based models showed significantly higher joint diagnostic performance than traditional statistical models (logit coefficient = 1.5657, p < 0.001), while external validation was associated with a significant loss of performance (-0.7962, p < 0.001). Estimated sensitivity ranged from 37.97% to 86.66% and specificity from 63.26% to 94.81% across algorithm types and phases.
conclusionsThe proposed workflow offers a methodologically rigorous and scalable approach to diagnostic evidence synthesis that is adaptable to clinical domains characterized by rapid literature growth and heterogeneous diagnostic evidence.
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.