SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2026
Quality and performance of machine learning versus logistic regression for predicting IVIG resistance in Kawasaki disease: a PROBAST+AI systematic comparison.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to systematically compare the predictive performance and methodological quality of logistic regression (LR) and machine learning (ML) models for intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) resistance in Kawasaki disease (KD) using the PROBAST + AI framework.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify studies on prediction models for IVIG resistance in KD published between January 1, 2006, and July 31, 2025. We assessed methodological rigour, risk of bias, and applicability using PROBAST + AI. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models with logit-transformed area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values. Subgroup, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses were additionally conducted.
resultsWe identified 52 eligible studies (40 LR and 12 ML). In external validation, pooled AUCs were similar between ML and LR models (0.76 [95% CI 0.64-0.86] vs. 0.75 [95% CI 0.68-0.81]). In internal validation, ML showed a slightly higher pooled AUC than LR (0.86 [95% CI 0.78-0.92] vs. 0.76 [95% CI 0.72-0.79]), although no statistically significant differences were observed. All studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, mainly due to retrospective single-centre designs, inadequate handling of missing data and continuous predictors, and poor reporting of calibration and clinical utility. No study reported sample size calculations.
conclusionsGiven the limited external validation and substantial heterogeneity across studies, ML does not consistently outperform LR in predicting IVIG resistance in KD. Future studies should prioritise rigorous external validation and adherence to TRIPOD + AI and PROBAST + AI.
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.