SynthesisPediatric surgery international2026
Machine learning in the diagnosis of Hirschsprung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Pediatric surgery international, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate current evidence on machine learning (ML) for the diagnosis of Hirschsprung disease (HSCR) and summarize its diagnostic performance and potential clinical utility.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched (January 2016-November 2025) for studies applying ML to HSCR diagnosis. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Findings were narratively synthesized, with exploratory meta-analysis performed where feasible.
resultsEleven studies were included, with substantial heterogeneity in design, data modalities, and outcomes. Three barium enema-based studies were eligible for meta-analysis, showing pooled sensitivity of 0.857 (95% CI 0.738-0.936), specificity of 0.880 (95% CI 0.790-0.941), and an area under the curve of 0.927. In rectal biopsy-based studies, ML-assisted approaches appeared to reduce interpretation time, while evidence for improved diagnostic performance remains limited and heterogeneous.
conclusionML may have potential value in supporting HSCR diagnosis, particularly when combined with imaging and clinical data. In histopathology, ML appears more likely to serve as an assistive tool to improve efficiency and potentially enhance diagnostic performance rather than replace expert interpretation. Further prospective multicenter studies are needed before routine clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42295411What 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.